| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"ZilentNoise" |
| Date: |
13 Jun 2007 08:51:26 AM |
| Object: |
TOBS disagreements among scientists on evolution |
When a special centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species was
to be published, W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth
Institute of Biological Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write
its introduction. In it he said: “As we know, there is a great
divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of
evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists
because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain
conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of
the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.
.
|
|
| User: "The Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
17 Jun 2007 07:23:51 PM |
|
|
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:dP9di.281$%t6.105@trnddc02...
I am not a creationist, but consider this, ........
And bears don't poop in the woods. You are, like all JWs, a CREATIONIST.
You lie constantly because you're too ashamed to admit what the WTS teaches.
You claim to to believe in terraforming. Same as creation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentNoise" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
18 Jun 2007 04:41:51 AM |
|
|
The Apostate wrote:
"ZilentNoise" <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:dP9di.281$%t6.105@trnddc02...
I am not a creationist, but consider this, ........
And bears don't poop in the woods. You are, like all JWs, a
CREATIONIST. You lie constantly because you're too ashamed to admit what
the WTS teaches.
So much for 20 yrs as bogus JW wannabe. the WTS doesn't teaches
anything. Oh well...Now then, tell us how you were dumped in TN by Hells
Angels.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
18 Jun 2007 04:47:08 PM |
|
|
"ZilentNoise" aka JABRIOL <ZilentNoise@malinator.com> wrote in message
news:zrsdi.4373$%t6.1903@trnddc02...
So much for 20 yrs as bogus JW wannabe. the WTS doesn't teaches anything.
Oh well...Now then, tell us how you were dumped in TN by Hells Angels.
Hells Angels? ???? How about you tell us about those rapes of Norma and
Revis again Antonio. Since you keep talking about Hells Angels ... was it
them who raped your wife and daughter? Is that why you obsess over them?
Could it be because you claimed rape is normal and natural due to evolution
is taught in the schools? Did you tell them that rape was normal and
natural after the rapes Antonio?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: ZilentNoise Running From Request for Science |
17 Jun 2007 01:30:26 PM |
|
|
On Jun 17, 7:30 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 16, 4:45 pm, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
EVOLUTIONISTS offer a variety of arguments in favor of their theory.
LIE!
EVOLUTIONISTS OFFER ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS OF SOLID SCIENCE
PUBLISHED IN PEER REVIEWED PAPERS IN REFEREED SCIENCE JOURNALS THE
WORLD OVER BY PEOPLE OF ALL FAITHS.
Your foaming at he mouth again wipe your chin
When you're prepared to stop LYING and present some science supporting
your creation, let us know.
I am not a creationist,
Yes you are. This has already been proven.
but consider this, Evolutionists now admit that
the fossil record does not support the theories they have long
championed. "The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120
years does not exist," a paleontologist told a conference of
evolutionists in Chicago in 1980.
Out of context "quote" with zero reference from a quarter century ago.
That's truly pathetic.
Now let's get back to the central issue here. You've proven one thing
and one thing only - that you know how to whine long and loud.
WHERE IS YOUR SCIENCE? Can you present any for your case, or are you
going to prove to us all in these worldwide fora that whilst the
Theory of Evolution has 150 years of solid scientific backing, you
have absolutely ZERO?
It's put up or shut up time.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Siteldawgnumber1" |
|
| Title: Re: ZilentNoise Running From Request for Science |
17 Jun 2007 03:13:07 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in
news:1182105026.343242.326450@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
On Jun 17, 7:30 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 16, 4:45 pm, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com>
wrote:
EVOLUTIONISTS offer a variety of arguments in favor of their
theory.
LIE!
EVOLUTIONISTS OFFER ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS OF SOLID SCIENCE
PUBLISHED IN PEER REVIEWED PAPERS IN REFEREED SCIENCE JOURNALS
THE
WORLD OVER BY PEOPLE OF ALL FAITHS.
Your foaming at he mouth again wipe your chin
When you're prepared to stop LYING and present some science
supporting
your creation, let us know.
I am not a creationist,
Yes you are. This has already been proven.
but consider this, Evolutionists now admit that
the fossil record does not support the theories they have long
championed. "The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120
years does not exist," a paleontologist told a conference of
evolutionists in Chicago in 1980.
Out of context "quote" with zero reference from a quarter century
ago.
That's truly pathetic.
Now let's get back to the central issue here. You've proven one
thing
and one thing only - that you know how to whine long and loud.
WHERE IS YOUR SCIENCE? Can you present any for your case, or are
you
going to prove to us all in these worldwide fora that whilst the
Theory of Evolution has 150 years of solid scientific backing, you
have absolutely ZERO?
It's put up or shut up time.
Budikka
You know, Buddika, if not for you dogged pursuit of Jabriol, I might
be among the top ten posters in arj-w. Why, after all this time, do
you think you can pin Anonio down?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: ZilentNoise Running From Request for Science |
18 Jun 2007 05:31:32 PM |
|
|
On Jun 17, 3:13 pm, Siteldawgnumber1 <Siteldawgnumb...@aol.com> wrote:
Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote innews:1182105026.343242.326450@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
On Jun 17, 7:30 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 16, 4:45 pm, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com>
wrote:
EVOLUTIONISTS offer a variety of arguments in favor of their
theory.
LIE!
EVOLUTIONISTS OFFER ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS OF SOLID SCIENCE
PUBLISHED IN PEER REVIEWED PAPERS IN REFEREED SCIENCE JOURNALS
THE
WORLD OVER BY PEOPLE OF ALL FAITHS.
Your foaming at he mouth again wipe your chin
When you're prepared to stop LYING and present some science
supporting
your creation, let us know.
I am not a creationist,
Yes you are. This has already been proven.
but consider this, Evolutionists now admit that
the fossil record does not support the theories they have long
championed. "The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120
years does not exist," a paleontologist told a conference of
evolutionists in Chicago in 1980.
Out of context "quote" with zero reference from a quarter century
ago.
That's truly pathetic.
Now let's get back to the central issue here. You've proven one
thing
and one thing only - that you know how to whine long and loud.
WHERE IS YOUR SCIENCE? Can you present any for your case, or are
you
going to prove to us all in these worldwide fora that whilst the
Theory of Evolution has 150 years of solid scientific backing, you
have absolutely ZERO?
It's put up or shut up time.
Budikka
You know, Buddika, if not for you dogged pursuit of Jabriol, I might
be among the top ten posters in arj-w. Why, after all this time, do
you think you can pin Anonio down?
You can't pin him down because he's nothing but a blustering coward
like all creationists who post in alt.atheism. The fact that they are
too chicken to debate and cannot support their claims is proof of the
absolute vacuity of their position.
However, I refuse to let such lying cowards get away with posting
their nonsense unchallenged. It's that simple.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ips-Switch" |
|
| Title: Re: ZilentNoise Running From Request for Science |
18 Jun 2007 10:30:53 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1182205892.134261.300860@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
However, I refuse to let such lying cowards get away with posting
their nonsense unchallenged. It's that simple.
But when he "gets your goat" that's his warped reward, his sick
"gratification." He feels he won the debate once he provokes the other
person to anger and frustration. He used to torture those on the support
groups. Remember,... this is his LIFE! He doesn't even go door to door
anymore according to a member of his old congregation. He just sits home
collecting welfare checks and harassing people on Usenet. This is where our
tax money goes........
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Comm" |
|
| Title: Re: ZilentNoise Running From Request for Science |
15 Jul 2007 08:30:49 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1182205892.134261.300860@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 17, 3:13 pm, Siteldawgnumber1 <Siteldawgnumb...@aol.com> wrote:
Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote
innews:1182105026.343242.326450@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
On Jun 17, 7:30 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 16, 4:45 pm, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com>
wrote:
EVOLUTIONISTS offer a variety of arguments in favor of their
theory.
LIE!
EVOLUTIONISTS OFFER ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS OF SOLID SCIENCE
PUBLISHED IN PEER REVIEWED PAPERS IN REFEREED SCIENCE JOURNALS
THE
WORLD OVER BY PEOPLE OF ALL FAITHS.
Your foaming at he mouth again wipe your chin
When you're prepared to stop LYING and present some science
supporting
your creation, let us know.
I am not a creationist,
Yes you are. This has already been proven.
but consider this, Evolutionists now admit that
the fossil record does not support the theories they have long
championed. "The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120
years does not exist," a paleontologist told a conference of
evolutionists in Chicago in 1980.
Out of context "quote" with zero reference from a quarter century
ago.
That's truly pathetic.
Now let's get back to the central issue here. You've proven one
thing
and one thing only - that you know how to whine long and loud.
WHERE IS YOUR SCIENCE? Can you present any for your case, or are
you
going to prove to us all in these worldwide fora that whilst the
Theory of Evolution has 150 years of solid scientific backing, you
have absolutely ZERO?
It's put up or shut up time.
Budikka
You know, Buddika, if not for you dogged pursuit of Jabriol, I might
be among the top ten posters in arj-w. Why, after all this time, do
you think you can pin Anonio down?
You can't pin him down because he's nothing but a blustering coward
like all creationists who post in alt.atheism. The fact that they are
too chicken to debate and cannot support their claims is proof of the
absolute vacuity of their position.
However, I refuse to let such lying cowards get away with posting
their nonsense unchallenged. It's that simple.
UH, WOW! So then, if I made a post-bot that spewed a bunch of *****
about how aliens created life on earth, or aliens mated with something and
that made humans, or some other rubbish like that, I'd have you on a leash
chasing me all over usenet to pin me down and refute it? WOW! That would
mean that I would own you. You must have a LOT LOT of time to waste - er -
spend on this Jabroil person. Doesn't all that time take away from stuff
you would rather be pursuing, gaining knowledge, studying, or having fun?
Hmm, guess not.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Siteldawgnumber1" |
|
| Title: Re: ZilentNoise Running From Request for Science |
18 Jun 2007 10:45:30 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in
news:1182205892.134261.300860@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
On Jun 17, 3:13 pm, Siteldawgnumber1 <Siteldawgnumb...@aol.com>
wrote:
Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote
innews:1182105026.343242.326450@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
On Jun 17, 7:30 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com>
wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
On Jun 16, 4:45 pm, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com>
wrote:
EVOLUTIONISTS offer a variety of arguments in favor of their
theory.
LIE!
EVOLUTIONISTS OFFER ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS OF SOLID
SCIENCE
PUBLISHED IN PEER REVIEWED PAPERS IN REFEREED SCIENCE JOURNALS
THE
WORLD OVER BY PEOPLE OF ALL FAITHS.
Your foaming at he mouth again wipe your chin
When you're prepared to stop LYING and present some science
supporting
your creation, let us know.
I am not a creationist,
Yes you are. This has already been proven.
but consider this, Evolutionists now admit that
the fossil record does not support the theories they have long
championed. "The pattern that we were told to find for the last
120 years does not exist," a paleontologist told a conference of
evolutionists in Chicago in 1980.
Out of context "quote" with zero reference from a quarter century
ago.
That's truly pathetic.
Now let's get back to the central issue here. You've proven one
thing
and one thing only - that you know how to whine long and loud.
WHERE IS YOUR SCIENCE? Can you present any for your case, or are
you
going to prove to us all in these worldwide fora that whilst the
Theory of Evolution has 150 years of solid scientific backing,
you
have absolutely ZERO?
It's put up or shut up time.
Budikka
You know, Buddika, if not for you dogged pursuit of Jabriol, I
might
be among the top ten posters in arj-w. Why, after all this time,
do
you think you can pin Anonio down?
You can't pin him down because he's nothing but a blustering coward
like all creationists who post in alt.atheism. The fact that they
are
too chicken to debate and cannot support their claims is proof of
the
absolute vacuity of their position.
However, I refuse to let such lying cowards get away with posting
their nonsense unchallenged. It's that simple.
Simple enough. That's bound to make a few people uncomfortable. ;>D
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=E4rFl=E4ken?=" |
|
| Title: Re: ZilentNoise Running From Request for Science |
18 Jun 2007 06:52:19 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
You know, Buddika, if not for you dogged pursuit of Jabriol, I might
be among the top ten posters in arj-w. Why, after all this time, do
you think you can pin Anonio down?
You can't pin him down because he's nothing but a blustering coward
like all creationists who post in alt.atheism.
You can't pin me down, because your arguments are lame...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
17 Jun 2007 10:23:16 AM |
|
|
ZilentNoise wrote:
I am not a creationist, but consider this, Evolutionists now
admit that the fossil record does not support the theories
they have long championed.
Both statements are false. The claims of ONE creationist at some
conference is not the view of all of science.
So now a new school has emerged, describing evolution as
following a course of “punctuated equilibrium.”.....
I see you have absolutely no understand of what that means and
how your claims are totally wrong. PE is just one way evolution
works. There are others if you'd bother to read up on them. No
one species evolved using only one of the modes but most likely a
combination.
Evolution is still a fact - species have changed over time.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentNoise" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
17 Jun 2007 01:59:29 PM |
|
|
David V. wrote:
ZilentNoise wrote:
I am not a creationist, but consider this, Evolutionists now admit
that the fossil record does not support the theories they have long
championed.
Both statements are false. The claims of ONE creationist at some
conference is not the view of all of science.
So now a new school has emerged, describing evolution as following a
course of “punctuated equilibrium.”.....
I see you have absolutely no understand of what that means and
how your claims are totally wrong. PE is just one way evolution
works. There are others if you'd bother to read up on them. No
one species evolved using only one of the modes but most likely a
combination.
Evolution is still a fact - species have changed over time.
I guess if it rains on monday you would call that evolution as well.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
16 Jun 2007 09:12:07 PM |
|
|
ZilentNoise wrote:
EVOLUTIONISTS
What is an "evolutionist"? In all my years in college and doing
field work in entomology, I've never heard that term used by
someone that has been to college.
offer a variety of arguments in favor of their theory.
Not so much as "arguments" but facts. If you don't understand the
facts, that doesn't make them wrong.
Most of the evidence they cite is from living organisms.
Don't forget the tons of fossils that go back billions of years.
They point to similarities in skeletal structure of different
animals as proof that such animals are related, if not by
direct descent, at least by descent from a common ancestor.
Or it could mean that some god was just lazy and used the same
pattern over and over again. The problem with that argument is
that there is no proof this god exists. You have to prove the god
first, then you can make claims about what it did.
They point out that in the early stages of development from
the egg cell, the embryos of “higher” animals resemble those
of “lower” ones. They analyze the blood plasma or the chemical
structure of hemoglobin and on that basis classify different
species as being close or more distant relatives.
Your point? At least we have evidence, and proof. What do the
anti-evolutionists have? "God-did-it." That's a non answer.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
17 Jun 2007 04:01:20 PM |
|
|
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qs6dnX1cI6rnBenbnZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d@sti.net...
ZilentNoise wrote:
EVOLUTIONISTS
What is an "evolutionist"? In all my years in college and doing
field work in entomology, I've never heard that term used by
someone that has been to college.
Antonio aka ZilentNoise aka JABRIOL is a drop-out on welfare who tries to
run with the big dogs.
offer a variety of arguments in favor of their theory.
Not so much as "arguments" but facts. If you don't understand the
facts, that doesn't make them wrong.
Most of the evidence they cite is from living organisms.
Don't forget the tons of fossils that go back billions of years.
Jehovah's Witnesses claim the fossils were planted by Satan to turn people
away from Jehovah. I hope you realize you're trying to reason with a JW.
They point to similarities in skeletal structure of different animals as
proof that such animals are related, if not by direct descent, at least
by descent from a common ancestor.
Or it could mean that some god was just lazy and used the same
pattern over and over again. The problem with that argument is
that there is no proof this god exists. You have to prove the god
first, then you can make claims about what it did.
He's already been told this hundreds of times over the years.
They point out that in the early stages of development from the egg cell,
the embryos of “higher” animals resemble those of “lower” ones. They
analyze the blood plasma or the chemical
structure of hemoglobin and on that basis classify different species as
being close or more distant relatives.
Your point? At least we have evidence, and proof. What do the
anti-evolutionists have? "God-did-it." That's a non answer.
Not for a Jehovah's Witness. They are discouraged from seeking the real
truth about evolution. Few will bother to seek information beyond the
Watchtower literature, so another generation remains ignorant and is brain
washed that goddidit. They don't even take their children to museums where
fossils are on display least the children start to ask questions.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentNoise" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
18 Jun 2007 04:35:56 AM |
|
|
Kathy wrote:
Antonio aka ZilentNoise aka JABRIOL is a drop-out on welfare who tries
to run with the big dogs.
Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Jehovah's Witnesses claim the fossils were planted by Satan to turn
people away from Jehovah. I hope you realize you're trying to reason
with a JW.
Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
19 Jun 2007 02:55:08 PM |
|
|
On Jun 18, 4:35 am, ZilentNoise <ZilentNo...@malinator.com> wrote:
Kathy wrote:
Antonio aka ZilentNoise aka JABRIOL is a drop-out on welfare who tries
to run with the big dogs.
Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Jehovah's Witnesses claim the fossils were planted by Satan to turn
people away from Jehovah. I hope you realize you're trying to reason
with a JW.
Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
You'd actually have to *present* an argument to accuse someone of
that. So far you've offered nothing but whining. Where is your
*scientific* support for your claims?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
18 Jun 2007 08:45:24 AM |
|
|
ZilentNoise wrote:
Kathy wrote:
Antonio aka ZilentNoise aka JABRIOL is a drop-out on welfare
who tries to run with the big dogs.
Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
And in cases like this one, it is a proper argument.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
17 Jun 2007 09:38:04 PM |
|
|
Kathy wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote
ZilentNoise wrote:
EVOLUTIONISTS
What is an "evolutionist"? In all my years in college and
doing field work in entomology, I've never heard that term
used by someone that has been to college.
Antonio aka ZilentNoise aka JABRIOL is a drop-out on welfare
who tries to run with the big dogs.
How can a chihuahua run with big dogs?
Jehovah's Witnesses claim the fossils were planted by Satan to
turn people away from Jehovah. I hope you realize you're
trying to reason with a JW.
Other cretonists claim their god put them there to fool humans.
They just make this stuff up as they go along. Don't worry, I
knew from the original posting that the OP was an ignorant buffoon.
Not for a Jehovah's Witness. They are discouraged from
seeking the real truth about evolution. Few will bother to
seek information beyond the Watchtower literature, so another
generation remains ignorant and is brain washed that goddidit.
They don't even take their children to museums where fossils
are on display least the children start to ask questions.
I know. They even have an elder follow them on their rounds so
that they won't hear or say anything wrong. It's funny when they
come to my house - they always end up running away screaming like
little girls.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
19 Jun 2007 11:48:20 AM |
|
|
David V. wrote:
Kathy wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote
ZilentNoise wrote:
EVOLUTIONISTS
What is an "evolutionist"? In all my years in college and
doing field work in entomology, I've never heard that term
used by someone that has been to college.
Antonio aka ZilentNoise aka JABRIOL is a drop-out on welfare
who tries to run with the big dogs.
How can a chihuahua run with big dogs?
It's more like "how can a rock run with the big dogs?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
19 Jun 2007 02:32:29 PM |
|
|
"Mike" <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in message
news:f591ck$4fh$1@news04.infoave.net...
David V. wrote:
Kathy wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote
ZilentNoise wrote:
EVOLUTIONISTS
What is an "evolutionist"? In all my years in college and
doing field work in entomology, I've never heard that term
used by someone that has been to college.
Antonio aka ZilentNoise aka JABRIOL is a drop-out on welfare
who tries to run with the big dogs.
How can a chihuahua run with big dogs?
It's more like "how can a rock run with the big dogs?"
and your point is?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
19 Jun 2007 08:58:25 PM |
|
|
Jabriol wrote:
"Mike" <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in message
news:f591ck$4fh$1@news04.infoave.net...
David V. wrote:
Kathy wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote
ZilentNoise wrote:
EVOLUTIONISTS
What is an "evolutionist"? In all my years in college and
doing field work in entomology, I've never heard that term
used by someone that has been to college.
Antonio aka ZilentNoise aka JABRIOL is a drop-out on welfare
who tries to run with the big dogs.
How can a chihuahua run with big dogs?
It's more like "how can a rock run with the big dogs?"
and your point is?
Over your head.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
20 Jun 2007 10:23:33 AM |
|
|
Jabriol wrote:
"Mike" <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in message
news:f591ck$4fh$1@news04.infoave.net...
David V. wrote:
Kathy wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote
ZilentNoise wrote:
EVOLUTIONISTS
What is an "evolutionist"? In all my years in college and
doing field work in entomology, I've never heard that term
used by someone that has been to college.
Antonio aka ZilentNoise aka JABRIOL is a drop-out on welfare
who tries to run with the big dogs.
How can a chihuahua run with big dogs?
It's more like "how can a rock run with the big dogs?"
and your point is?
On the top of your head.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentPanzer" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
19 Jun 2007 05:05:14 PM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
David V. wrote:
Kathy wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote
ZilentNoise wrote:
EVOLUTIONISTS
What is an "evolutionist"? In all my years in college and
doing field work in entomology, I've never heard that term
used by someone that has been to college.
Antonio aka ZilentNoise aka JABRIOL is a drop-out on welfare
who tries to run with the big dogs.
How can a chihuahua run with big dogs?
It's more like "how can a rock run with the big dogs?"
Give it time, rocks will eventually evolve.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZilentNoise" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
17 Jun 2007 07:01:44 AM |
|
|
David V. wrote:
ZilentNoise wrote:
EVOLUTIONISTS
What is an "evolutionist"? In all my years in college and doing
field work in entomology, I've never heard that term used by
someone that has been to college.
Get your money back, you were robbed. googled it.
offer a variety of arguments in favor of their theory.
Not so much as "arguments" but facts. If you don't understand the
facts, that doesn't make them wrong.
such as?
Most of the evidence they cite is from living organisms.
Don't forget the tons of fossils that go back billions of years.
even your fellow atheist and pseudo scientist do not agree on the fossil
evidence.
They point to similarities in skeletal structure of different animals
as proof that such animals are related, if not by direct descent, at
least by descent from a common ancestor.
Or it could mean that some god was just lazy and used the same
pattern over and over again. The problem with that argument is
that there is no proof this god exists. You have to prove the god
first, then you can make claims about what it did.
there is no "proof" that abiogenesis happen neither.
They point out that in the early stages of development from the egg
cell, the embryos of “higher” animals resemble those of “lower” ones.
They analyze the blood plasma or the chemical
structure of hemoglobin and on that basis classify different species
as being close or more distant relatives.
Your point? At least we have evidence, and proof.
Of what exactly?
What do the
anti-evolutionists have? "God-did-it." That's a non answer.
if there is no such thing as an evolutionist, why would there be an
anti-evolutionist. Typical oxymoronic thinking of "evolutionist"
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
17 Jun 2007 10:16:51 AM |
|
|
ZilentNoise wrote:
David V. wrote:
ZilentNoise wrote:
EVOLUTIONISTS
What is an "evolutionist"? In all my years in college and
doing field work in entomology, I've never heard that term
used by someone that has been to college.
Get your money back, you were robbed. googled it.
I see you couldn't answer the question. That looks like the start
of a trend.
offer a variety of arguments in favor of their theory.
Not so much as "arguments" but facts. If you don't
understand the facts, that doesn't make them wrong.
such as?
Uh.... the fact of evolution.
Most of the evidence they cite is from living organisms.
Don't forget the tons of fossils that go back billions of
years.
even your fellow atheist and pseudo scientist do not agree on
the fossil evidence.
Uh..... it's there. How can one not agree on something that
exists by the ton? I've even dug up a bunch of them myself.
They point to similarities in skeletal structure of
different animals as proof that such animals are related,
if not by direct descent, at least by descent from a
common ancestor.
Or it could mean that some god was just lazy and used the
same pattern over and over again. The problem with that
argument is that there is no proof this god exists. You have
to prove the god first, then you can make claims about what
it did.
there is no "proof" that abiogenesis happen neither.
Irrelevant to evolution.
They point out that in the early stages of development
from the egg cell, the embryos of “higher” animals
resemble those of “lower” ones. They analyze the blood
plasma or the chemical structure of hemoglobin and on that
basis classify different species as being close or more
distant relatives.
Your point? At least we have evidence, and proof.
Of what exactly?
Of the fact of evolution. The only people that deny evolution are
those that have a religious bias.
What do the anti-evolutionists have? "God-did-it." That's a
non answer.
if there is no such thing as an evolutionist, why would there
be an anti-evolutionist. Typical oxymoronic thinking of
"evolutionist"
I could explain, but I know it would be a waste of my time. You
are a perfect example of an anti-evolutionist. You are against
evolution solely on religious grounds. You have no understanding
of the science behind evolution and that ignorance is held to on
purpose. You have no replacement for the fact of evolution other
than a "god-did-it" which is really not an answer at all.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Comm" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
04 Jul 2007 10:23:15 PM |
|
|
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:y8ydnbmoF6v6zejbnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@sti.net...
ZilentNoise wrote:
David V. wrote:
ZilentNoise wrote:
EVOLUTIONISTS
What is an "evolutionist"? In all my years in college and doing field
work in entomology, I've never heard that term used by someone that has
been to college.
Generally, it means a person that ascribes to the THEORY of Evolution -
thinks it's a FACT (not a theory) and gets into arguments with
creationists - knowing that they can't understand it, and yet bitching and
moaning that they don't understand it!
Get your money back, you were robbed. googled it.
I see you couldn't answer the question. That looks like the start
of a trend.
I see the start of another flame.
offer a variety of arguments in favor of their theory.
Not so much as "arguments" but facts. If you don't understand the facts,
that doesn't make them wrong.
such as?
Uh.... the fact of evolution.
Ooops - so far, it's still a theory - and it's revised over and over again
as more information is found out, such as genetic information. Then, the
geneticists try to trash the entire study of "the bones guys" - which, imo,
is not a wise thing to do since genetics is pretty new. Right now, deDuve
himself is no longer ascribing to the RNA first theory. The DNA first
theory is long out the door. deDuva wrote Vital Dust - a wonderful book, in
case you don't know who he is.
Most of the evidence they cite is from living organisms.
Don't forget the tons of fossils that go back billions of years.
Genetic evidence is VERY strong - it shows relatedness and degrees of
relatedness.
even your fellow atheist and pseudo scientist do not agree on
the fossil evidence.
Science is science because it can be proven true - OR FALSE. That is
something non scientific people do not quite understand - so I just said it.
When more is found, they have to revise. Sometimes, they have to throw out
what they thought, and completely revise. The problem, I think, is that
every single time they find something new, they make BIG theories, state
them as if "now THESE are the facts, facts, FACTS" and they also tend to
shout down anyone that disagrees with them! Remember Dart? LOL. How long
did his paradigm last? How about Wolpoff and Stringer going at it? They
can't BOTH be right, you know..... But most people get to hear only
Stringer's view, as if that's THE FACTS. No - it's a THEORY!
Uh..... it's there. How can one not agree on something that
exists by the ton? I've even dug up a bunch of them myself.
They point to similarities in skeletal structure of different animals
as proof that such animals are related,
if not by direct descent, at least by descent from a common ancestor.
Or it could mean that some god was just lazy and used the same pattern
over and over again. The problem with that argument is that there is no
proof this god exists. You have
to prove the god first, then you can make claims about what
it did.
Ah, but there you have it. Whether a god created it all using the same or
very similar patterns - or it's all interrelated (as genetics would show) -
it doesn't really make much difference. It's SAYing the same thing! It
really IS saying the same thing! All life on earth IS related - and what's
not really related CO-evolved (like some bacteria).
there is no "proof" that abiogenesis happen neither.
Irrelevant to evolution.
They point out that in the early stages of development from the egg
cell, the embryos of “higher” animals resemble those of “lower” ones.
They analyze the blood plasma or the chemical structure of hemoglobin
and on that
basis classify different species as being close or more distant
relatives.
Your point? At least we have evidence, and proof.
Of what exactly?
Of the fact of evolution. The only people that deny evolution are
those that have a religious bias.
Evolution is a theory. Religious people need to understand what the
difference IS between science and religion. Religion is faith. Science is
not faith - it's something subject to being proven false - not just true.
You can't prove OR disprove the existence of a God. Or Gods! Or Aliens.
That's why that is NOT science. Religion shouldn't BE science, either.
There are also many religiouns out there, all of them claiming that they
have The Truth - and that their God is THE God. But science is something
not like that at all. There are theories, they are not YET facts because
there are enouch discrepancies for there to be more than one theory. Like
in physics, a good eg.
What do the anti-evolutionists have? "God-did-it." That's a
non answer.
if there is no such thing as an evolutionist, why would there
be an anti-evolutionist. Typical oxymoronic thinking of "evolutionist"
I could explain, but I know it would be a waste of my time. You
are a perfect example of an anti-evolutionist. You are against
evolution solely on religious grounds. You have no understanding
of the science behind evolution and that ignorance is held to on
purpose.
YES - some people are NOT able to understand science, or biology, or math.
They just can't understand it (evolutionary biology and/or theory). Point
is, they don't HAVE to understand it. Did Farraday understand evolution (he
predates the theory, btw) when he discovered electromagnetism? Farraday WAS
a religious man - he studied it BECAUSE of his religion. He jump started
technology in the West as all others after him, including Einstein, built on
what he proved.
The thing is, there is NO valid reason to teach children "the theory of
evolution" when you can't really dumb it down. Children do not understand
advanced biology - or ANY biology. So why try to teach them a dumbed down
(usually false and PC) version of this? Engineers, mathematicians,
physicists - none of them have to know a thing about evolutionary biology to
do their science. Most people think "man evolved from chimps" and that's
damned WRONG. So why bother trying to teach anyone some dumbed down version
of something that advanced and hard? These same people don't even know what
a freaking amoeba is. Sheesh. Asked for something they SHOULD know (their
cholesterol) they say something incredibly stupid - like giving their total
number. They don't even know that they need to know the RATIO not the
damned total number. And you expect them to understand evolutionary biology
when they can't understand ***** they need to know about their own health?
Come on.
I think the entire damned NOISY hubbub would just vanish if EVOLUTIONISTS
(yes) stopped trying to peddle this to people that are IN NO WAY going to
understand it, since they haven't even taken one freaking course in biology.
They need, instead, to learn to read, write, do basic arithmetic, etc. They
DO NOT need to know evolutionary theory, for instance, to know how to
balance their check books or do the daily chores needed to live. That's why
there is hubbub.
You have no replacement for the fact of evolution other
than a "god-did-it" which is really not an answer at all.
Yes, they DO NOT have a replacement. That is their level. Are you angry
because they don't understand it? Or are you understanding that they
wouldn't be in your hair IF you stopped trying to do the impossible - teach
uneducated kids an advanced theory.
Remember, during the time of Farraday, it was the common as-given that
Genesis was how man got here. No one gave it a second thought. People like
Farraday lived in the here and now - and he wanted to know - making the
analogy "we see a building, but we also know that bricks, wood, nails, etc
went into MAKING that building, the finished product) he wanted to know HOW
God made the world, what the BRICKS were. He found one of the most
important bricks: electromagnetism.
Btw, I'm not religious, not a creationist - I understand evolutionary
biology and might say I know it's right - they just need to know MORE to
work out the many kinks. However, I'm sick and tired of hearing
"evolutionists" spew what they THINK is evolutionary theory - and get it SO
god damned wrong that I want to choke the people who taught this ***** to
them. All wrong.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
04 Jul 2007 10:53:55 PM |
|
|
Comm wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com>
ZilentNoise wrote:
David V. wrote:
ZilentNoise wrote:
EVOLUTIONISTS
What is an "evolutionist"? In all my years in college
and doing field work in entomology, I've never heard
that term used by someone that has been to college.
Generally, it means a person that ascribes to the THEORY of
Evolution - thinks it's a FACT (not a theory) .....
Actually it is a code word used by creationists. And evolution is
a fact. It happened and is happening now.
Get your money back, you were robbed. googled it.
I see you couldn't answer the question. That looks like the
start of a trend.
I see the start of another flame.
Only because you earned it.
offer a variety of arguments in favor of their theory.
Not so much as "arguments" but facts. If you don't
understand the facts, that doesn't make them wrong.
such as?
Uh.... the fact of evolution.
Ooops - so far, it's still a theory
Evolution is a fact. You can deny it all you want, but it's still
a fact. The SCIENTIFIC definition of 'theory' is far different
than the vernacular, or uneducated street usage. In science a
theory does not mean guess. A theory explains a set of facts. If
it had no facts behind it, it would not be called a theory.
Most of the evidence they cite is from living
organisms.
Don't forget the tons of fossils that go back billions
of years.
Genetic evidence is VERY strong - it shows relatedness and
degrees of relatedness.
And disproves creationism.
even your fellow atheist and pseudo scientist do not agree
on the fossil evidence.
Science is science because it can be proven true - OR FALSE.
And in this case creationists have not proven anything false. All
they've done is proven they have religious objections and not any
scientific or rational ones.
Uh..... it's there. How can one not agree on something that
exists by the ton? I've even dug up a bunch of them myself.
They point to similarities in skeletal structure of
different animals as proof that such animals are
related, if not by direct descent, at least by descent
from a common ancestor.
Or it could mean that some god was just lazy and used
the same pattern over and over again. The problem with
that argument is that there is no proof this god exists.
You have to prove the god first, then you can make
claims about what it did.
Ah, but there you have it. Whether a god created it.......
Statements crediting a god for anything are not acceptable in a
scientific debate. Save that stuff for your religious friends.
They point out that in the early stages of development
from the egg cell, the embryos of “higher” animals
resemble those of “lower” ones. They analyze the blood
plasma or the chemical structure of hemoglobin and on
that basis classify different species as being close
or more distant relatives.
Your point? At least we have evidence, and proof.
Of what exactly?
Of the fact of evolution. The only people that deny
evolution are those that have a religious bias.
Evolution is a theory.
Which is a very dishonest argument used by creationists. It just
shows how they are willing to twist the truth and the meaning of
words just to support their little gods.
What do the anti-evolutionists have? "God-did-it."
That's a non answer.
if there is no such thing as an evolutionist, why would
there be an anti-evolutionist. Typical oxymoronic thinking
of "evolutionist"
I could explain, but I know it would be a waste of my time.
You are a perfect example of an anti-evolutionist. You are
against evolution solely on religious grounds. You have no
understanding of the science behind evolution and that
ignorance is held to on purpose.
YES - some people are NOT able to understand science, or
biology, or math.
That is no excuse to remain ignorant and claim gods did it.
The thing is, there is NO valid reason to teach children "the
theory of evolution" when you can't really dumb it down......
It is the truth, and a fact. That's why it needs to be taught.
How complex is "change over time"? Even 7 year olds can
understand that. Why can't creationists?
I think the entire damned NOISY hubbub would just vanish if
EVOLUTIONISTS
There's that code word again.
You have no replacement for the fact of evolution other than
a "god-did-it" which is really not an answer at all.
Yes, they DO NOT have a replacement. That is their level.
Then they need to keep their level to themselves and their
churches and keep their BS out of our public schools systems.
Creationism is a religious dogma and has no business in public
schools.
Remember, during the time of Farraday
Sorry, I wasn't alive then.
Btw, I'm not religious, not a creationist - I understand
evolutionary biology and might say I know it's right - they
just need to know MORE to work out the many kinks. However,
I'm sick and tired of hearing "evolutionists" spew what they
THINK is evolutionary theory - and get it SO god damned wrong
that I want to choke the people who taught this ***** to them.
All wrong.
Then you need to figure out why you have such a negative
reaction. Maybe counseling would help.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Comm" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
14 Jul 2007 11:43:49 PM |
|
|
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CcmdnX97eozI9hHbnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@sti.net...
Comm wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com>
What is an "evolutionist"? In all my years in college
and doing field work in entomology, I've never heard
that term used by someone that has been to college.
Generally, it means a person that ascribes to the THEORY of
Evolution - thinks it's a FACT (not a theory) .....
Actually it is a code word used by creationists. And evolution is
a fact. It happened and is happening now.
This I know. However - the THEORY of Evolution is still a theory - and I
mean that in the SAME sense that C. deDuve meant it. I don't know much
about what creationists mean or say, except the bits and pieces I see on
usenet during flame wars. I'm not a Christian. And, "creation" is not an
aspect of my cultural philosophy/theology. Emanation is. Change is.
Becoming is.
Get your money back, you were robbed. googled it.
I see you couldn't answer the question. That looks like the
start of a trend.
I see the start of another flame.
Only because you earned it.
Wrong. No one flamed me. I see, what little I read, people flaming others.
I didn't earn anything.
offer a variety of arguments in favor of their theory.
Not so much as "arguments" but facts. If you don't
understand the facts, that doesn't make them wrong.
such as?
Uh.... the fact of evolution.
Ooops - so far, it's still a theory
Evolution is a fact. You can deny it all you want, but it's still
a fact. The SCIENTIFIC definition of 'theory'
I know the scientific definition of a theory. I know the THEORY of
evolution - and think it's correct. I think there are many more things
involved in "what cause change" aside from mutations and catastrophes (PE).
I think viruses have something to do with it too, and I have good reason to
think this. I think Margulies is onto something, also. Her paradigm is
very different from Darwin's updated paradigm.
is far different
than the vernacular, or uneducated street usage. In science a
theory does not mean guess. A theory explains a set of facts. If
it had no facts behind it, it would not be called a theory.
LMAO - yes, I know. But it is called a theory - LMAO. I find it highly
amusing that you people RANT against those you think are creationists (maybe
they are, I didn't read enough to be able to tell).... when you know that
they don't understand biology. It's sort of like getting raging mad at a
person that is innumerate for not being able to add or subtract. Instead of
explaining it in a way he might be able to understand, you rant and rage.
Most of the evidence they cite is from living
organisms.
Don't forget the tons of fossils that go back billions
of years.
Genetic evidence is VERY strong - it shows relatedness and
degrees of relatedness.
And disproves creationism.
DUH, no ***** ***** Tracey.
even your fellow atheist and pseudo scientist do not agree
on the fossil evidence.
Science is science because it can be proven true - OR FALSE.
And in this case creationists have not proven anything false. All
they've done is proven they have religious objections and not any
scientific or rational ones.
And all you have done is prove that you can't understand what it means when
a person can not understand something. You rail at an innumerate person for
balancing your check book wrong - LMAO. God can't be proven or disproven.
Therefore - God is a non-scientific concept. Hmm, now, that's what God is
SUPPOSESD to be - so it would seem that creationist don't understand what
RELIGION is, either. Unfortunately, they have a book belonging to Hebrews,
which none of them can read correctly - and they read it in English
translation literally, which they are NOT supposed to do in the first place.
Proves that they don't understand religion, either. Right? Right.
Uh..... it's there. How can one not agree on something that exists by
the ton? I've even dug up a bunch of them myself.
They point to similarities in skeletal structure of
different animals as proof that such animals are
related, if not by direct descent, at least by descent
from a common ancestor.
Or it could mean that some god was just lazy and used
the same pattern over and over again. The problem with
that argument is that there is no proof this god exists.
You have to prove the god first, then you can make
claims about what it did.
Ah, but there you have it. Whether a god created it.......
Statements crediting a god for anything are not acceptable in a
scientific debate. Save that stuff for your religious friends.
I don't have religious friends.
They point out that in the early stages of development
from the egg cell, the embryos of "higher" animals
resemble those of "lower" ones. They analyze the blood
plasma or the chemical structure of hemoglobin and on
that basis classify different species as being close
or more distant relatives.
Your point? At least we have evidence, and proof.
Of what exactly?
Of the fact of evolution. The only people that deny
evolution are those that have a religious bias.
Evolution is a theory.
Which is a very dishonest argument used by creationists. It just
shows how they are willing to twist the truth and the meaning of
words just to support their little gods.
How am I supposed to know that they "use that" as an argument? I don't know
any creationists. I don't know any idiots, either. The theory of evolution
requires ADVANCED biological knowledge to comprehend. It can not be DUMBED
DOWN. Why anyone would bother to try to teach this to kids that should be
learning to do math and read properly is beyond my ability to fathom. It's
a waste of time. Kids are NOT going to understand it. You need to first
crawl. Then walk. Then run. Not in reverse order.
What do the anti-evolutionists have? "God-did-it."
That's a non answer.
if there is no such thing as an evolutionist, why would
there be an anti-evolutionist. Typical oxymoronic thinking
of "evolutionist"
I could explain, but I know it would be a waste of my time.
You are a perfect example of an anti-evolutionist. You are
against evolution solely on religious grounds. You have no
understanding of the science behind evolution and that
ignorance is held to on purpose.
YES - some people are NOT able to understand science, or
biology, or math.
That is no excuse to remain ignorant and claim gods did it.
Sure it is. That's what they are capable of knowing. There is no reason
for them to know evolutionary theory in the first place. Think about it.
Farraday didn't know evolutionary theory - hell, the theory didn't even
exist during his time. Yet he discovered EM - and his foundation led the
way for Einstein and the rest. No need to know evolutionary biology to do
any of that. These people don't NEED TO KNOW it. Neither do kids who are
just learning basic things in school.
The thing is, there is NO valid reason to teach children "the
theory of evolution" when you can't really dumb it down......
It is the truth, and a fact. That's why it needs to be taught.
No, it does not need to be taught becuase it can not be DUMBED DOWN. Kids
don't know advanced biology. Period. Farraday didn't know it.
Nonetheless..... his proofs led the way to our modern technology. By the
way, heh, he went to discover the "bricks" that made reality DUE TO his
knowledge of his religion. Thought you might want to know that..... The
man was SMART. Oh yeah, you have to be SMART to understand biology.
How complex is "change over time"? Even 7 year olds can
understand that. Why can't creationists?
I don't know any creationists. Maybe they can't understand it because they
can't SEE it. They see dogs. They are still dogs and they don't change
unless you mix breed them. And so forth. Simple? Yes, very simple.
I think the entire damned NOISY hubbub would just vanish if
EVOLUTIONISTS
There's that code word again.
I'm not talking code. Lucky me, I don't know their codes. OR yours.
You have no replacement for the fact of evolution other than
a "god-did-it" which is really not an answer at all.
Yes, they DO NOT have a replacement. That is their level.
Then they need to keep their level to themselves and their
churches and keep their BS out of our public schools systems.
Creationism is a religious dogma and has no business in public
schools.
I agree that no religion should be taught in PUBLIC schools. But I will
point out that "Genesis" was the as-given accepted idea among many people
for a long time - and it did NOT hamper people discovering things that led
to the industrial and then technological revolutions. Farraday again. He
discovered EM BECAUSE of "genesis." Not despite it. I'm just being
objective here. You are being emotional.
The religious people are at odds with the pop PC version of evolution. The
real theory of evolution is entirely UN PC. Habitat tracking is absolutely
UN PC. They are at odds with the "moral baggage" the lefties tack onto the
proper theory of evolution.
Remember, during the time of Farraday
Sorry, I wasn't alive then.
You are no different from creationists you abhor then. I am trying to
explain something about this genius - and you are making spews and quips.
You don't want to know. How interesting!
Btw, I'm not religious, not a creationist - I understand
evolutionary biology and might say I know it's right - they
just need to know MORE to work out the many kinks. However,
I'm sick and tired of hearing "evolutionists" spew what they
THINK is evolutionary theory - and get it SO god damned wrong
that I want to choke the people who taught this ***** to them.
All wrong.
Then you need to figure out why you have such a negative
reaction. Maybe counseling would help.
That's what you say when you got CAUGHT ego projecting and being stupid. HA
HA.
You seem to need the counceling because you are on here wasting your time
arguing with creationists. You also tend to SEE creationists where they
aren't. Hello. The people teaching ***** evolutionary theory are AS BAD
as the creationists you claim to hate so much. They are teaching a
falsehood with a bunch of pc rubbish tacked onto it. They are teaching this
to kids that can barely read and write, are lousy at math and wouldn't know
what H2O was if it splashed in their faces to wake them up.
You don't give a flying ***** what kids are taught, even dumbed down Forrest
Gump version of "duh, first there was the monkey and then the chimp and
chimpy is grandaddy." At least Farraday, with a religious idea of a creator
god, wanted to know exactly HOW it got created, what were the bricks that
ended up as the "building" we see and call "everything in the world." And
he discovered electromagnetism. You are certainly not a Farraday. He
discovered this due to a love of not only life itself, but a love for his
religion.
There is a big battle royal, a huge NON issue over what to teach kids that
are SO FUCKING STUPID from dumbed down education that they rank down there
with 3rd world savages on tests. Ok. Good luck. It's your battle. NOT
MINE.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
15 Jul 2007 12:11:34 AM |
|
|
Comm wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote
Comm wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com>
What is an "evolutionist"? In all my years in
college and doing field work in entomology, I've
never heard that term used by someone that has been
to college.
Generally, it means a person that ascribes to the THEORY
of Evolution - thinks it's a FACT (not a theory) .....
Actually it is a code word used by creationists. And
evolution is a fact. It happened and is happening now.
This I know. However - the THEORY of Evolution is still a
theory.......
It's also a fact. Just because you claim that something cannot be
"dumbed down" enough to teach in a below college level, does not
make it so. Electrical theory cannot be "dumbed down" enough, yet
we don't go around telling kids that gods make light bulbs glow.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Comm" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution--the hunt for-- |
15 Jul 2007 09:33:12 PM |
|
|
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:IaCdnVL9v8oUMQTbnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@sti.net...
Comm wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote
Comm wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com>
What is an "evolutionist"? In all my years in
college and doing field work in entomology, I've
never heard that term used by someone that has been
to college.
Generally, it means a person that ascribes to the THEORY
of Evolution - thinks it's a FACT (not a theory) .....
Actually it is a code word used by creationists. And
evolution is a fact. It happened and is happening now.
This I know. However - the THEORY of Evolution is still a
theory.......
It's also a fact. Just because you claim that something cannot be
"dumbed down" enough to teach in a below college level, does not
make it so. Electrical theory cannot be "dumbed down" enough, yet
we don't go around telling kids that gods make light bulbs glow.
Uh, what you teach kids is that they shouldn't stick their fingers in
sockets or stick objects in there, especially if they are wet. That's about
it. You teach them to turn the lights off when leaving a room. That's
about it.
Oh my oh my, you are just SO far from grasping what I'm even saying here
that I'm wasting my time trying. You are not a scientist. That's for
DAMNED sure.
You are simply REacting to religious people's REaction to former pc *****
being taught in schools and passing for "evolution." No use my trying to
explain anything. You aren't a scientist. If you were, you would
DEFINITELY understand all I said, especially what I explained about
Farraday. I'd not HAVE to explain it to any scientist. They'd already know
it.
Have a nice day.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
