"§ñühw¤£f" <snuhwolf@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:467939ce$0$97253$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...

Kathy <Kathy9045@gmail.com> pinched out a steaming pile
of<467876a0$0$1349$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com>:

"ZilentPanzer" <ZilentPanzer@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:_tYdi.2879$Zh6.2035@trnddc04...

Kathy wrote:

The unsavory, dishonest, habitually lying Jehovah's Witness

is

impersonating several people across many NGs.

SO you admit to multiple personality disorder. Beside you are

supposed to

be dead. I've killed you last night remember? Now stay Dead!!!!

Take a little too much medication again Antonio? You have over 140

socks

plus all those you impersonate... so yeah, I would say you suffer

not

only brain seizures but MPD, borderline personality disorder and
narcissism.

What makes you think he's "suffering"?
Seems pretty happy about it to me...

On second thought...... :-)))

--
www.smirkingchimp.com

On Jun 20, 4:42 pm, ZilentKnight <ZilentKni...@marionettespieger.net>
wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

On Jun 19, 5:08 pm, ZilentPanzer <ZilentPan...@mailinator.com> wrote:

Kathy wrote:

The unsavory, dishonest, habitually lying Jehovah's Witness Jabriol is
impersonating several people across many NGs.

SO you admit to multiple personality disorder. Beside you are supposed
to be dead. I've killed you last night remember? Now stay Dead!!!!

Still waiting on you supply the positive scientific evidence
supporting your position.

You first.

I've been doing it for years only to see you run away, but here goes
one more time.

Jeckyl wrote:

"Apostate" <durondae_@_hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:zT%di.3094$Zh6.846@trnddc04...

Consider the implications of the facts. If highly trained scientists
are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting
favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do
a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an
original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was
macroevolution supposed to have taken place?

That has not been proven .. simply prematurely concluded by
fundamentalist ID promoters

Darwin believed that what he called natural selection would favor those
life-forms best suited to the environment, while less suitable life-forms
would eventually die off. Modern evolutionists teach that as species
spread and became isolated, natural selection chose those whose gene
mutations made them most fit for their new environment. As a result,
evolutionists postulate, these isolated groups eventually developed into
totally new species.

As previously noted, the evidence from research strongly indicates that
mutations cannot produce entirely new kinds of plants or animals.
Nevertheless, what proof do evolutionists provide to support the claim
that natural selection chooses beneficial mutations to produce new
species? A brochure published in 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) in the United States says: “A particularly compelling example of
speciation [the evolution of new species] involves the 13 species of
finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s
finches.”

In the 1970’s, a research group led by Peter and Rosemary Grant began
studying these finches and discovered that after a year of drought,
finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived more readily than those
with smaller beaks. Since the size and shape of the beaks is one of the
primary ways of determining the 13 species of finches, these findings were
assumed to be significant. “The Grants have estimated,” continues the
brochure, “that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the
islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.”

However, the NAS brochure neglects to mention some significant but awkward
facts. In the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks
again dominated the population. Thus, Peter Grant and graduate student
Lisle Gibbs wrote in the science journal Nature in 1987 that they had seen
“a reversal in the direction of selection.” In 1991, Grant wrote that “the
population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth”
each time the climate changes. The researchers also noticed that some of
the different “species” of finches were interbreeding and producing
offspring that survived better than the parents. Peter and Rosemary Grant
concluded that if the interbreeding continued, it could result in the
fusion of two “species” into just one within 200 years.

Jeckyl wrote:

"Apostate" <durondae_@_hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:zT%di.3094$Zh6.846@trnddc04...

Consider the implications of the facts. If highly trained scientists
are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting
favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a
better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original
species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution
supposed to have taken place?

That has not been proven .. simply prematurely concluded by fundamentalist
ID promoters

Darwin believed that what he called natural selection would favor
those life-forms best suited to the environment, while less suitable