|
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2hrr54Fg08hiU1@uni-berlin.de... > Kadaitcha Man wrote: > > "C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:2hrqo5FghfbrU1@uni-berlin.de... > >> Kadaitcha Man wrote: > >>> "C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >>> news:2hrpibFg4gl9U1@uni-berlin.de... > >>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote: > >>>>> "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message > >>>>> news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message > >>>>>> news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx... > >>>>>>> "James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote > >>>>>>> in message news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com... > >>>>>>>>>>> This statement cannot be proved. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> which one, and why? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to > >>>>>>>>> contend with self-referential logic, not just notions of basic > >>>>>>>>> syntax, so I don't fancy your chances of figuring it out. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans > >>>>>>>>> have such a tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even > >>>>>>>>> the most mildly twisted notion escapes them. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> this is the point where i stopped reading > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You are a liar. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> because it became obvious that not > >>>>>>>> only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Shame on you, eh. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> but you were ignorant, > >>>>>>>> arrogant, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> And that's a revelation to you, is it? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> and instead of having any interest in debate > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is > >>>>>>> very interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth > >>>>>>> outrunning provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and > >>>>>>> mathematical philosphies are founded upon it. More shame on you, > >>>>>>> eh. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> were concerned solely > >>>>>>>> with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Here, choke on this, ----tard... focus the single, beady, > >>>>>>> close-set eye that sits in the middle of your steeply sloping > >>>>>>> forehead on the words 'Part 1 demonstrably shows that the self > >>>>>>> is the notional equivalent of "this sentence is unprovable".' > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you > >>>>>>> +=======================================+ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> SLAP! > >>>>>> Fingerprints and DNA > >>>>> > >>>>> <------- WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK> > >>>>> > >>>>> You didn't read it, did you, ----tard? Don't say you did, because > >>>>> DNA was dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable supporting > >>>>> argument, and to a level of proof acceptable in courts of law. > >>>>> > >>>>> You may now ---- right off and die, you dumb ----. > >>>> > >>>> Who said that? > >>> > >>> Who said what, ----nuts? > >> > >> There it is again!! > > > > > Ah...seems to be all better now. I was getting worried. You should be worried. You seem to be hearing voices when you read something. -- Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402 Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500 gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message news:c9beb8.11kk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx... > "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:T82uc.10341$%T.7603@okepread05... > > > > "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message > > news:c9bdnm.15j0.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx... > > > "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05... > > > > > > > > "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message > > > > news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx... > > > > > "James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in > > > message > > > > > news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com... > > > > > > > > > This statement cannot be proved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which one, and why? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to > > > contend > > > > > with > > > > > > > self-referential logic, not just notions of basic syntax, so I > > don't > > > > > fancy > > > > > > > your chances of figuring it out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans > have > > > such > > > > a > > > > > > > tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most > mildly > > > > > twisted > > > > > > > notion escapes them. > > > > > > > > > > > > this is the point where i stopped reading > > > > > > > > > > You are a liar. > > > > > > > > > > > because it became obvious that not > > > > > > only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually) > > > > > > > > > > Shame on you, eh. > > > > > > > > > > > but you were ignorant, > > > > > > arrogant, > > > > > > > > > > And that's a revelation to you, is it? > > > > > > > > > > > and instead of having any interest in debate > > > > > > > > > > Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very > > > > > interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth outrunning > > > > > provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and mathematical > > > philosphies > > > > > are founded upon it. More shame on you, eh. > > > > > > > > > > > were concerned solely > > > > > > with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case. > > > > > > > > > > Here, choke on this, ----tard... focus the single, beady, close-set > > eye > > > > that > > > > > sits in the middle of your steeply sloping forehead on the words > 'Part > > 1 > > > > > demonstrably shows that the self is the notional equivalent of "this > > > > > sentence is unprovable".' > > > > > > > > > > PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you > > > > > +=======================================+ > > > > > > > > SLAP! > > > > Fingerprints and DNA > > > > > > <------- WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK> > > > > > > You didn't read it, did you, ----tard? Don't say you did, because DNA > was > > > dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable supporting argument, and > > to > > > a level of proof acceptable in courts of law. > > > > > > You may now ---- right off and die, you dumb ----. > > > > > Did read it and DNA was not fully dismissed. It was delt with in the same > > lame way you deal with things. with nonsense that sounds convincing. > > Then counter argue, ----tard, otherwise you have nothing other than > empty-minded blubberings. Nothing surprising there, really. > > Nope- I just like hearing you squeal. A little louder. Im almost there |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message news:c9beb8.11kk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx... > "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:T82uc.10341$%T.7603@okepread05... > > > > "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message > > news:c9bdnm.15j0.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx... > > > "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05... > > > > > > > > "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message > > > > news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx... > > > > > "James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in > > > message > > > > > news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com... > > > > > > > > > This statement cannot be proved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which one, and why? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to > > > contend > > > > > with > > > > > > > self-referential logic, not just notions of basic syntax, so I > > don't > > > > > fancy > > > > > > > your chances of figuring it out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans > have > > > such > > > > a > > > > > > > tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most > mildly > > > > > twisted > > > > > > > notion escapes them. > > > > > > > > > > > > this is the point where i stopped reading > > > > > > > > > > You are a liar. > > > > > > > > > > > because it became obvious that not > > > > > > only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually) > > > > > > > > > > Shame on you, eh. > > > > > > > > > > > but you were ignorant, > > > > > > arrogant, > > > > > > > > > > And that's a revelation to you, is it? > > > > > > > > > > > and instead of having any interest in debate > > > > > > > > > > Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very > > > > > interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth outrunning > > > > > provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and mathematical > > > philosphies > > > > > are founded upon it. More shame on you, eh. > > > > > > > > > > > were concerned solely > > > > > > with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case. > > > > > > > > > > Here, choke on this, ----tard... focus the single, beady, close-set > > eye > > > > that > > > > > sits in the middle of your steeply sloping forehead on the words > 'Part > > 1 > > > > > demonstrably shows that the self is the notional equivalent of "this > > > > > sentence is unprovable".' > > > > > > > > > > PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you > > > > > +=======================================+ > > > > > > > > SLAP! > > > > Fingerprints and DNA > > > > > > <------- WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK> > > > > > > You didn't read it, did you, ----tard? Don't say you did, because DNA > was > > > dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable supporting argument, and > > to > > > a level of proof acceptable in courts of law. > > > > > > You may now ---- right off and die, you dumb ----. > > > > > Did read it and DNA was not fully dismissed. It was delt with in the same > > lame way you deal with things. with nonsense that sounds convincing. > > Then counter argue, ----tard, otherwise you have nothing other than > empty-minded blubberings. Nothing surprising there, really. > > Nope- I just like hearing you squeal. A little louder. Im almost there |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message news:c9beb8.11kk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx... > "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:T82uc.10341$%T.7603@okepread05... > > > > "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message > > news:c9bdnm.15j0.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx... > > > "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05... > > > > > > > > "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message > > > > news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx... > > > > > "James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in > > > message > > > > > news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com... > > > > > > > > > This statement cannot be proved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which one, and why? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to > > > contend > > > > > with > > > > > > > self-referential logic, not just notions of basic syntax, so I > > don't > > > > > fancy > > > > > > > your chances of figuring it out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans > have > > > such > > > > a > > > > > > > tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most > mildly > > > > > twisted > > > > > > > notion escapes them. > > > > > > > > > > > > this is the point where i stopped reading > > > > > > > > > > You are a liar. > > > > > > > > > > > because it became obvious that not > > > > > > only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually) > > > > > > > > > > Shame on you, eh. > > > > > > > > > > > but you were ignorant, > > > > > > arrogant, > > > > > > > > > > And that's a revelation to you, is it? > > > > > > > > > > > and instead of having any interest in debate > > > > > > > > > > Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very > > > > > interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth outrunning > > > > > provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and mathematical > > > philosphies > > > > > are founded upon it. More shame on you, eh. > > > > > > > > > > > were concerned solely > > > > > > with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case. > > > > > > > > > > Here, choke on this, ----tard... focus the single, beady, close-set > > eye > > > > that > > > > > sits in the middle of your steeply sloping forehead on the words > 'Part > > 1 > > > > > demonstrably shows that the self is the notional equivalent of "this > > > > > sentence is unprovable".' > > > > > > > > > > PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you > > > > > +=======================================+ > > > > > > > > SLAP! > > > > Fingerprints and DNA > > > > > > <------- WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK> > > > > > > You didn't read it, did you, ----tard? Don't say you did, because DNA > was > > > dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable supporting argument, and > > to > > > a level of proof acceptable in courts of law. > > > > > > You may now ---- right off and die, you dumb ----. > > > > > Did read it and DNA was not fully dismissed. It was delt with in the same > > lame way you deal with things. with nonsense that sounds convincing. > > Then counter argue, ----tard, otherwise you have nothing other than > empty-minded blubberings. Nothing surprising there, really. > > Nope- I just like hearing you squeal. A little louder. Im almost there |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message news:c9beb8.11kk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx... > "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:T82uc.10341$%T.7603@okepread05... > > > > "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message > > news:c9bdnm.15j0.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx... > > > "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05... > > > > > > > > "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message > > > > news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx... > > > > > "James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in > > > message > > > > > news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com... > > > > > > > > > This statement cannot be proved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which one, and why? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to > > > contend > > > > > with > > > > > > > self-referential logic, not just notions of basic syntax, so I > > don't > > > > > fancy > > > > > > > your chances of figuring it out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans > have > > > such > > > > a > > > > > > > tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most > mildly > > > > > twisted > > > > > > > notion escapes them. > > > > > > > > > > > > this is the point where i stopped reading > > > > > > > > > > You are a liar. > > > > > > > > > > > because it became obvious that not > > > > > > only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually) > > > > > > > > > > Shame on you, eh. > > > > > > > > > > > but you were ignorant, > > > > > > arrogant, > > > > > > > > > > And that's a revelation to you, is it? > > > > > > > > > > > and instead of having any interest in debate > > > > > > > > > > Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very > > > > > interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth outrunning > > > > > provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and mathematical > > > philosphies > > > > > are founded upon it. More shame on you, eh. > > > > > > > > > > > were concerned solely > > > > > > with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case. > > > > > > > > > > Here, choke on this, ----tard... focus the single, beady, close-set > > eye > > > > that > > > > > sits in the middle of your steeply sloping forehead on the words > 'Part > > 1 > > > > > demonstrably shows that the self is the notional equivalent of "this > > > > > sentence is unprovable".' > > > > > > > > > > PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you > > > > > +=======================================+ > > > > > > > > SLAP! > > > > Fingerprints and DNA > > > > > > <------- WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK> > > > > > > You didn't read it, did you, ----tard? Don't say you did, because DNA > was > > > dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable supporting argument, and > > to > > > a level of proof acceptable in courts of law. > > > > > > You may now ---- right off and die, you dumb ----. > > > > > Did read it and DNA was not fully dismissed. It was delt with in the same > > lame way you deal with things. with nonsense that sounds convincing. > > Then counter argue, ----tard, otherwise you have nothing other than > empty-minded blubberings. Nothing surprising there, really. > > Nope- I just like hearing you squeal. A little louder. Im almost there |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> "C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:2hrr54Fg08hiU1@uni-berlin.de... >> Kadaitcha Man wrote: >>> "C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:2hrqo5FghfbrU1@uni-berlin.de... >>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote: >>>>> "C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:2hrpibFg4gl9U1@uni-berlin.de... >>>>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote: >>>>>>> "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx... >>>>>>>>> "James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote >>>>>>>>> in message news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> This statement cannot be proved. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> which one, and why? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have >>>>>>>>>>> to contend with self-referential logic, not just notions of >>>>>>>>>>> basic syntax, so I don't fancy your chances of figuring it >>>>>>>>>>> out. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans >>>>>>>>>>> have such a tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of >>>>>>>>>>> even the most mildly twisted notion escapes them. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> this is the point where i stopped reading >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are a liar. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> because it became obvious that not >>>>>>>>>> only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Shame on you, eh. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> but you were ignorant, >>>>>>>>>> arrogant, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And that's a revelation to you, is it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and instead of having any interest in debate >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is >>>>>>>>> very interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth >>>>>>>>> outrunning provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and >>>>>>>>> mathematical philosphies are founded upon it. More shame on >>>>>>>>> you, eh. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> were concerned solely >>>>>>>>>> with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here, choke on this, ----tard... focus the single, beady, >>>>>>>>> close-set eye that sits in the middle of your steeply sloping >>>>>>>>> forehead on the words 'Part 1 demonstrably shows that the self >>>>>>>>> is the notional equivalent of "this sentence is unprovable".' >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you >>>>>>>>> +=======================================+ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> SLAP! >>>>>>>> Fingerprints and DNA >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <------- WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You didn't read it, did you, ----tard? Don't say you did, >>>>>>> because DNA was dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable >>>>>>> supporting argument, and to a level of proof acceptable in >>>>>>> courts of law. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You may now ---- right off and die, you dumb ----. >>>>>> >>>>>> Who said that? >>>>> >>>>> Who said what, ----nuts? >>>> >>>> There it is again!! >> >> >> >> >> Ah...seems to be all better now. I was getting worried. > > You should be worried. You seem to be hearing voices when you read > something. AAIIGGHHH!! This is freakin' me out. -- C'Pi "It's because of men like you that all must be destroyed." |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> "C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:2hrr54Fg08hiU1@uni-berlin.de... >> Kadaitcha Man wrote: >>> "C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:2hrqo5FghfbrU1@uni-berlin.de... >>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote: >>>>> "C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:2hrpibFg4gl9U1@uni-berlin.de... >>>>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote: >>>>>>> "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx... >>>>>>>>> "James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote >>>>>>>>> in message news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> This statement cannot be proved. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> which one, and why? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have >>>>>>>>>>> to contend with self-referential logic, not just notions of >>>>>>>>>>> basic syntax, so I don't fancy your chances of figuring it >>>>>>>>>>> out. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans >>>>>>>>>>> have such a tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of >>>>>>>>>>> even the most mildly twisted notion escapes them. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> this is the point where i stopped reading >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are a liar. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> because it became obvious that not >>>>>>>>>> only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Shame on you, eh. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> but you were ignorant, >>>>>>>>>> arrogant, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And that's a revelation to you, is it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and instead of having any interest in debate >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is >>>>>>>>> very interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth >>>>>>>>> outrunning provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and >>>>>>>>> mathematical philosphies are founded upon it. More shame on >>>>>>>>> you, eh. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> were concerned solely >>>>>>>>>> with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here, choke on this, ----tard... focus the single, beady, >>>>>>>>> close-set eye that sits in the middle of your steeply sloping >>>>>>>>> forehead on the words 'Part 1 demonstrably shows that the self >>>>>>>>> is the notional equivalent of "this sentence is unprovable".' >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you >>>>>>>>> +=======================================+ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> SLAP! >>>>>>>> Fingerprints and DNA >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <------- WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You didn't read it, did you, ----tard? Don't say you did, >>>>>>> because DNA was dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable >>>>>>> supporting argument, and to a level of proof acceptable in >>>>>>> courts of law. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You may now ---- right off and die, you dumb ----. >>>>>> >>>>>> Who said that? >>>>> >>>>> Who said what, ----nuts? >>>> >>>> There it is again!! >> >> >> >> >> Ah...seems to be all better now. I was getting worried. > > You should be worried. You seem to be hearing voices when you read > something. AAIIGGHHH!! This is freakin' me out. -- C'Pi "It's because of men like you that all must be destroyed." |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> "C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:2hrr54Fg08hiU1@uni-berlin.de... >> Kadaitcha Man wrote: >>> "C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:2hrqo5FghfbrU1@uni-berlin.de... >>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote: >>>>> "C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:2hrpibFg4gl9U1@uni-berlin.de... >>>>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote: >>>>>>> "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx... >>>>>>>>> "James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote >>>>>>>>> in message news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> This statement cannot be proved. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> which one, and why? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have >>>>>>>>>>> to contend with self-referential logic, not just notions of >>>>>>>>>>> basic syntax, so I don't fancy your chances of figuring it >>>>>>>>>>> out. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans >>>>>>>>>>> have such a tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of >>>>>>>>>>> even the most mildly twisted notion escapes them. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> this is the point where i stopped reading >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are a liar. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> because it became obvious that not >>>>>>>>>> only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Shame on you, eh. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> but you were ignorant, >>>>>>>>>> arrogant, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And that's a revelation to you, is it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and instead of having any interest in debate >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is >>>>>>>>> very interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth >>>>>>>>> outrunning provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and >>>>>>>>> mathematical philosphies are founded upon it. More shame on >>>>>>>>> you, eh. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> were concerned solely >>>>>>>>>> with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here, choke on this, ----tard... focus the single, beady, >>>>>>>>> close-set eye that sits in the middle of your steeply sloping >>>>>>>>> forehead on the words 'Part 1 demonstrably shows that the self >>>>>>>>> is the notional equivalent of "this sentence is unprovable".' >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you >>>>>>>>> +=======================================+ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> SLAP! >>>>>>>> Fingerprints and DNA >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <------- WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You didn't read it, did you, ----tard? Don't say you did, >>>>>>> because DNA was dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable >>>>>>> supporting argument, and to a level of proof acceptable in >>>>>>> courts of law. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You may now ---- right off and die, you dumb ----. >>>>>> >>>>>> Who said that? >>>>> >>>>> Who said what, ----nuts? >>>> >>>> There it is again!! >> >> >> >> >> Ah...seems to be all better now. I was getting worried. > > You should be worried. You seem to be hearing voices when you read > something. AAIIGGHHH!! This is freakin' me out. -- C'Pi "It's because of men like you that all must be destroyed." |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> "C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:2hrr54Fg08hiU1@uni-berlin.de... >> Kadaitcha Man wrote: >>> "C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:2hrqo5FghfbrU1@uni-berlin.de... >>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote: >>>>> "C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:2hrpibFg4gl9U1@uni-berlin.de... >>>>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote: >>>>>>> "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx... >>>>>>>>> "James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote >>>>>>>>> in message news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> This statement cannot be proved. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> which one, and why? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have >>>>>>>>>>> to contend with self-referential logic, not just notions of >>>>>>>>>>> basic syntax, so I don't fancy your chances of figuring it >>>>>>>>>>> out. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans >>>>>>>>>>> have such a tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of >>>>>>>>>>> even the most mildly twisted notion escapes them. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> this is the point where i stopped reading >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are a liar. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> because it became obvious that not >>>>>>>>>> only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Shame on you, eh. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> but you were ignorant, >>>>>>>>>> arrogant, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And that's a revelation to you, is it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and instead of having any interest in debate >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is >>>>>>>>> very interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth >>>>>>>>> outrunning provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and >>>>>>>>> mathematical philosphies are founded upon it. More shame on >>>>>>>>> you, eh. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> were concerned solely >>>>>>>>>> with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here, choke on this, ----tard... focus the single, beady, >>>>>>>>> close-set eye that sits in the middle of your steeply sloping >>>>>>>>> forehead on the words 'Part 1 demonstrably shows that the self >>>>>>>>> is the notional equivalent of "this sentence is unprovable".' >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you >>>>>>>>> +=======================================+ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> SLAP! >>>>>>>> Fingerprints and DNA >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <------- WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You didn't read it, did you, ----tard? Don't say you did, >>>>>>> because DNA was dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable >>>>>>> supporting argument, and to a level of proof acceptable in >>>>>>> courts of law. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You may now ---- right off and die, you dumb ----. >>>>>> >>>>>> Who said that? >>>>> >>>>> Who said what, ----nuts? >>>> >>>> There it is again!! >> >> >> >> >> Ah...seems to be all better now. I was getting worried. > > You should be worried. You seem to be hearing voices when you read > something. AAIIGGHHH!! This is freakin' me out. -- C'Pi "It's because of men like you that all must be destroyed." |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:lM2uc.10655$%T.3453@okepread05...
> > Then counter argue, ----tard, otherwise you have nothing other than > > empty-minded blubberings. Nothing surprising there, really. > > > > > Nope- I just like hearing you squeal. > A little louder. Im almost there Where is the squealing in the stament you refer to? -- Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402 Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500 gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:lM2uc.10655$%T.3453@okepread05...
> > Then counter argue, ----tard, otherwise you have nothing other than > > empty-minded blubberings. Nothing surprising there, really. > > > > > Nope- I just like hearing you squeal. > A little louder. Im almost there Where is the squealing in the stament you refer to? -- Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402 Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500 gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:lM2uc.10655$%T.3453@okepread05...
> > Then counter argue, ----tard, otherwise you have nothing other than > > empty-minded blubberings. Nothing surprising there, really. > > > > > Nope- I just like hearing you squeal. > A little louder. Im almost there Where is the squealing in the stament you refer to? -- Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402 Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500 gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:lM2uc.10655$%T.3453@okepread05...
> > Then counter argue, ----tard, otherwise you have nothing other than > > empty-minded blubberings. Nothing surprising there, really. > > > > > Nope- I just like hearing you squeal. > A little louder. Im almost there Where is the squealing in the stament you refer to? -- Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402 Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500 gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in
news:c99it8.m94.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx: > I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have such a > tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most mildly > twisted notion escapes them. Reality proves otherwise. |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in
news:c99it8.m94.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx: > I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have such a > tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most mildly > twisted notion escapes them. Reality proves otherwise. |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in
news:c99it8.m94.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx: > I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have such a > tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most mildly > twisted notion escapes them. Reality proves otherwise. |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in
news:c99it8.m94.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx: > I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have such a > tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most mildly > twisted notion escapes them. Reality proves otherwise. |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in
news:c9bdnm.15j0.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx: > <------- WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK> > > You didn't read it, did you, ----tard? Don't say you did, because DNA > was dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable supporting argument, > and to a level of proof acceptable in courts of law. > > You may now ---- right off and die, you dumb ----. Is this the extent of your lame argument? |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in
news:c9bdnm.15j0.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx: > <------- WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK> > > You didn't read it, did you, ----tard? Don't say you did, because DNA > was dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable supporting argument, > and to a level of proof acceptable in courts of law. > > You may now ---- right off and die, you dumb ----. Is this the extent of your lame argument? |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in
news:c9bdnm.15j0.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx: > <------- WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK> > > You didn't read it, did you, ----tard? Don't say you did, because DNA > was dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable supporting argument, > and to a level of proof acceptable in courts of law. > > You may now ---- right off and die, you dumb ----. Is this the extent of your lame argument? |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in
news:c9bdnm.15j0.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx: > <------- WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK> > > You didn't read it, did you, ----tard? Don't say you did, because DNA > was dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable supporting argument, > and to a level of proof acceptable in courts of law. > > You may now ---- right off and die, you dumb ----. Is this the extent of your lame argument? |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message news:c9bguc.1814.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx... > "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:lM2uc.10655$%T.3453@okepread05... > > > > Then counter argue, ----tard, otherwise you have nothing other than > > > empty-minded blubberings. Nothing surprising there, really. > > > > > > > > Nope- I just like hearing you squeal. > > A little louder. Im almost there > > Where is the squealing in the stament you refer to? > Oh yeah... that's it... louder this time... |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message news:c9bguc.1814.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx... > "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:lM2uc.10655$%T.3453@okepread05... > > > > Then counter argue, ----tard, otherwise you have nothing other than > > > empty-minded blubberings. Nothing surprising there, really. > > > > > > > > Nope- I just like hearing you squeal. > > A little louder. Im almost there > > Where is the squealing in the stament you refer to? > Oh yeah... that's it... louder this time... |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message news:c9bguc.1814.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx... > "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:lM2uc.10655$%T.3453@okepread05... > > > > Then counter argue, ----tard, otherwise you have nothing other than > > > empty-minded blubberings. Nothing surprising there, really. > > > > > > > > Nope- I just like hearing you squeal. > > A little louder. Im almost there > > Where is the squealing in the stament you refer to? > Oh yeah... that's it... louder this time... |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message news:c9bguc.1814.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx... > "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:lM2uc.10655$%T.3453@okepread05... > > > > Then counter argue, ----tard, otherwise you have nothing other than > > > empty-minded blubberings. Nothing surprising there, really. > > > > > > > > Nope- I just like hearing you squeal. > > A little louder. Im almost there > > Where is the squealing in the stament you refer to? > Oh yeah... that's it... louder this time... |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message news:1085760579.14129.2@ersa.uk.clara.net... > Xomicron wrote: > > > I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern man > > has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living > > beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those > > changes in the first place. > > > > Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved > > scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in > > the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support > > our position. > > > > Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, > > suppose, etc. but they don't "know." > > > > Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, > > convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. > > So what's your favourite Star Trek episode? > > -- > Graham Kennedy > Im guessing it's not Genesis (TNG), The Chase (TNG) or Threshold (VOY) to name 3. Or er....nearly all the episodes of Enterprise that involve the Xindi Kathryn |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message news:1085760579.14129.2@ersa.uk.clara.net... > Xomicron wrote: > > > I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern man > > has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living > > beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those > > changes in the first place. > > > > Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved > > scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in > > the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support > > our position. > > > > Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, > > suppose, etc. but they don't "know." > > > > Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, > > convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. > > So what's your favourite Star Trek episode? > > -- > Graham Kennedy > Im guessing it's not Genesis (TNG), The Chase (TNG) or Threshold (VOY) to name 3. Or er....nearly all the episodes of Enterprise that involve the Xindi Kathryn |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message news:1085760579.14129.2@ersa.uk.clara.net... > Xomicron wrote: > > > I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern man > > has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living > > beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those > > changes in the first place. > > > > Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved > > scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in > > the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support > > our position. > > > > Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, > > suppose, etc. but they don't "know." > > > > Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, > > convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. > > So what's your favourite Star Trek episode? > > -- > Graham Kennedy > Im guessing it's not Genesis (TNG), The Chase (TNG) or Threshold (VOY) to name 3. Or er....nearly all the episodes of Enterprise that involve the Xindi Kathryn |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message news:1085760579.14129.2@ersa.uk.clara.net... > Xomicron wrote: > > > I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern man > > has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living > > beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those > > changes in the first place. > > > > Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved > > scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in > > the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support > > our position. > > > > Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, > > suppose, etc. but they don't "know." > > > > Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, > > convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. > > So what's your favourite Star Trek episode? > > -- > Graham Kennedy > Im guessing it's not Genesis (TNG), The Chase (TNG) or Threshold (VOY) to name 3. Or er....nearly all the episodes of Enterprise that involve the Xindi Kathryn |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
Kathryn wrote:
> "Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message > news:1085760579.14129.2@ersa.uk.clara.net... > >>Xomicron wrote: >> >> >>>I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern > > man > >>>has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living >>>beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those >>>changes in the first place. >>> >>>Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved >>>scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in >>>the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to > > support > >>>our position. >>> >>>Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, >>>suppose, etc. but they don't "know." >>> >>>Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, >>>convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. >> >>So what's your favourite Star Trek episode? >> >>-- >>Graham Kennedy >> > > > Im guessing it's not Genesis (TNG), The Chase (TNG) or Threshold (VOY) to > name 3. Or er....nearly all the episodes of Enterprise that involve the > Xindi <snicker> Yeah, I would guess so. Although when you think about it, given the amount of messing about that evolution gets in Trek maybe he *would* like it after all! -- Graham Kennedy Creator and Author, Daystrom Institute Technical Library http://www.ditl.org |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
Kathryn wrote:
> "Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message > news:1085760579.14129.2@ersa.uk.clara.net... > >>Xomicron wrote: >> >> >>>I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern > > man > >>>has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living >>>beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those >>>changes in the first place. >>> >>>Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved >>>scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in >>>the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to > > support > >>>our position. >>> >>>Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, >>>suppose, etc. but they don't "know." >>> >>>Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, >>>convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. >> >>So what's your favourite Star Trek episode? >> >>-- >>Graham Kennedy >> > > > Im guessing it's not Genesis (TNG), The Chase (TNG) or Threshold (VOY) to > name 3. Or er....nearly all the episodes of Enterprise that involve the > Xindi <snicker> Yeah, I would guess so. Although when you think about it, given the amount of messing about that evolution gets in Trek maybe he *would* like it after all! -- Graham Kennedy Creator and Author, Daystrom Institute Technical Library http://www.ditl.org |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
Kathryn wrote:
> "Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message > news:1085760579.14129.2@ersa.uk.clara.net... > >>Xomicron wrote: >> >> >>>I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern > > man > >>>has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living >>>beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those >>>changes in the first place. >>> >>>Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved >>>scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in >>>the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to > > support > >>>our position. >>> >>>Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, >>>suppose, etc. but they don't "know." >>> >>>Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, >>>convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. >> >>So what's your favourite Star Trek episode? >> >>-- >>Graham Kennedy >> > > > Im guessing it's not Genesis (TNG), The Chase (TNG) or Threshold (VOY) to > name 3. Or er....nearly all the episodes of Enterprise that involve the > Xindi <snicker> Yeah, I would guess so. Although when you think about it, given the amount of messing about that evolution gets in Trek maybe he *would* like it after all! -- Graham Kennedy Creator and Author, Daystrom Institute Technical Library http://www.ditl.org |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
Kathryn wrote:
> "Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message > news:1085760579.14129.2@ersa.uk.clara.net... > >>Xomicron wrote: >> >> >>>I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern > > man > >>>has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living >>>beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those >>>changes in the first place. >>> >>>Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved >>>scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in >>>the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to > > support > >>>our position. >>> >>>Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, >>>suppose, etc. but they don't "know." >>> >>>Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, >>>convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. >> >>So what's your favourite Star Trek episode? >> >>-- >>Graham Kennedy >> > > > Im guessing it's not Genesis (TNG), The Chase (TNG) or Threshold (VOY) to > name 3. Or er....nearly all the episodes of Enterprise that involve the > Xindi <snicker> Yeah, I would guess so. Although when you think about it, given the amount of messing about that evolution gets in Trek maybe he *would* like it after all! -- Graham Kennedy Creator and Author, Daystrom Institute Technical Library http://www.ditl.org |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<5Hxtc.46930$kc2.711218@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
> I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern man > has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living > beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those > changes in the first place. > > Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved > scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in > the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support > our position. > > Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, > suppose, etc. but they don't "know." > > Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, > convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. I replied to this post, 24 hours ago. As my reply has not appeared, I am writing again. Apologies if my first reply turns up. Evolution is as fundamental to biology as the periodic table is to chemistry. We don't need fossils, DNA evidence is enough. So you believe in the 100% veracity of the Bible?. Let us forget the obvious nonsense of the spare rib and Noah's Ark and go the the NT. Matthew was a Greek Christian and clearly not very erudite in his understanding of the ancient Hebrew poems which he regarded as prophesies. The result is that he has Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two asses, an ass and a colt of a she-ass. He is quoting from Zachariah 9.9. It was common at the time for the poets to repeat the last line of the verse with greater emphasis with more detail. The poet wrote:riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of a she-ass. Matthew,(an ignorant Greek) in his eagerness to follw the poet (prophet) slavishly has Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two asses. "Behold your King is coming to you, gentle, and mounted upon a she-ass and upon a colt, the foal of a beast of burden. Bernard |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<5Hxtc.46930$kc2.711218@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
> I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern man > has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living > beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those > changes in the first place. > > Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved > scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in > the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support > our position. > > Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, > suppose, etc. but they don't "know." > > Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, > convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. I replied to this post, 24 hours ago. As my reply has not appeared, I am writing again. Apologies if my first reply turns up. Evolution is as fundamental to biology as the periodic table is to chemistry. We don't need fossils, DNA evidence is enough. So you believe in the 100% veracity of the Bible?. Let us forget the obvious nonsense of the spare rib and Noah's Ark and go the the NT. Matthew was a Greek Christian and clearly not very erudite in his understanding of the ancient Hebrew poems which he regarded as prophesies. The result is that he has Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two asses, an ass and a colt of a she-ass. He is quoting from Zachariah 9.9. It was common at the time for the poets to repeat the last line of the verse with greater emphasis with more detail. The poet wrote:riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of a she-ass. Matthew,(an ignorant Greek) in his eagerness to follw the poet (prophet) slavishly has Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two asses. "Behold your King is coming to you, gentle, and mounted upon a she-ass and upon a colt, the foal of a beast of burden. Bernard |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<5Hxtc.46930$kc2.711218@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
> I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern man > has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living > beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those > changes in the first place. > > Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved > scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in > the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support > our position. > > Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, > suppose, etc. but they don't "know." > > Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, > convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. I replied to this post, 24 hours ago. As my reply has not appeared, I am writing again. Apologies if my first reply turns up. Evolution is as fundamental to biology as the periodic table is to chemistry. We don't need fossils, DNA evidence is enough. So you believe in the 100% veracity of the Bible?. Let us forget the obvious nonsense of the spare rib and Noah's Ark and go the the NT. Matthew was a Greek Christian and clearly not very erudite in his understanding of the ancient Hebrew poems which he regarded as prophesies. The result is that he has Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two asses, an ass and a colt of a she-ass. He is quoting from Zachariah 9.9. It was common at the time for the poets to repeat the last line of the verse with greater emphasis with more detail. The poet wrote:riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of a she-ass. Matthew,(an ignorant Greek) in his eagerness to follw the poet (prophet) slavishly has Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two asses. "Behold your King is coming to you, gentle, and mounted upon a she-ass and upon a colt, the foal of a beast of burden. Bernard |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<5Hxtc.46930$kc2.711218@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
> I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern man > has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living > beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those > changes in the first place. > > Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved > scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in > the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support > our position. > > Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, > suppose, etc. but they don't "know." > > Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, > convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. I replied to this post, 24 hours ago. As my reply has not appeared, I am writing again. Apologies if my first reply turns up. Evolution is as fundamental to biology as the periodic table is to chemistry. We don't need fossils, DNA evidence is enough. So you believe in the 100% veracity of the Bible?. Let us forget the obvious nonsense of the spare rib and Noah's Ark and go the the NT. Matthew was a Greek Christian and clearly not very erudite in his understanding of the ancient Hebrew poems which he regarded as prophesies. The result is that he has Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two asses, an ass and a colt of a she-ass. He is quoting from Zachariah 9.9. It was common at the time for the poets to repeat the last line of the verse with greater emphasis with more detail. The poet wrote:riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of a she-ass. Matthew,(an ignorant Greek) in his eagerness to follw the poet (prophet) slavishly has Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two asses. "Behold your King is coming to you, gentle, and mounted upon a she-ass and upon a colt, the foal of a beast of burden. Bernard |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<5Hxtc.46930$kc2.711218@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
> I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern man > has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living > beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those > changes in the first place. > > Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved > scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in > the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support > our position. > > Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, > suppose, etc. but they don't "know." > > Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, > convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. God created evolution.......so simple one-cell organisms could lead to modern day humans, and that was God's intention all along. That's evolution and creationism combined, which I believe in. Oh, see the movie "Saved!", it's all about people like you. |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<5Hxtc.46930$kc2.711218@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
> I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern man > has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living > beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those > changes in the first place. > > Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved > scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in > the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support > our position. > > Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, > suppose, etc. but they don't "know." > > Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, > convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. God created evolution.......so simple one-cell organisms could lead to modern day humans, and that was God's intention all along. That's evolution and creationism combined, which I believe in. Oh, see the movie "Saved!", it's all about people like you. |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<5Hxtc.46930$kc2.711218@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
> I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern man > has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living > beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those > changes in the first place. > > Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved > scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in > the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support > our position. > > Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, > suppose, etc. but they don't "know." > > Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, > convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. God created evolution.......so simple one-cell organisms could lead to modern day humans, and that was God's intention all along. That's evolution and creationism combined, which I believe in. Oh, see the movie "Saved!", it's all about people like you. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:49 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands