Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Evolutionists Demand Laws to Silence Students Skeptics
1 view
Skip to first unread message
BroilJAB
May 25, 2012, 12:34:38 AM5/25/12
to
Evolution is a known fact, no proof available or needed.
Science is falsifiable, testable, no frauds accepted.
Evolution has never been shown in 150 years searching.
Science is demonstrable and reproducible each time.
Evolution must be accepted as a guiding dogma.
Science is falsifiable, testable, no frauds accepted.
Evolution has never been shown in 150 years searching.
Science is demonstrable and reproducible each time.
Evolution must be accepted as a guiding dogma.
Uirgil
May 25, 2012, 1:03:46 AM5/25/12
to
In article
<e2dd7f8c-8e3b-4916...@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Evolution is a known fact
No, stupid, it is a theory, and as such is a pattern verified by many
millions of facts.
<e2dd7f8c-8e3b-4916...@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Evolution is a known fact
No, stupid, it is a theory, and as such is a pattern verified by many
millions of facts.
Uirgil
May 25, 2012, 6:11:08 PM5/25/12
to
In article
<5f611221-acd7-480e...@j10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
Any theory is, in fact, millions of facts neatly tied up in a theory.
So Evolution is millions of facts neatly tied up in a theory.
Liarboi Broiljab, DesignDenier, again displaying his abject ignrance for
all to see!
<5f611221-acd7-480e...@j10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
Any theory is, in fact, millions of facts neatly tied up in a theory.
So Evolution is millions of facts neatly tied up in a theory.
Liarboi Broiljab, DesignDenier, again displaying his abject ignrance for
all to see!
Uirgil
May 25, 2012, 7:49:59 PM5/25/12
to
In article
<5a24c239-8875-49c4...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Marvin dilates,
> Evolution is a logical conclusion and not a
> science.
>
> BroilJAB said,
> Yet, it must be testable or it fails. Let's test it.
It has been tested by much better than IDiot BroilJAB and found much
better supported tha any theist religion,
it is actually supported by huge amounts of objective physical evidence,
which no theist religion is, and is not opposed by any objective
physical evidence, which some theist religions, the creatonists ones,
are.
> In over 150 years, there has never been one
> instance of a 'new species arising by natural
> selection'.
False claim. made by someone whose record for falsehood is substantial.
<5a24c239-8875-49c4...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Marvin dilates,
> Evolution is a logical conclusion and not a
> science.
>
> BroilJAB said,
> Yet, it must be testable or it fails. Let's test it.
It has been tested by much better than IDiot BroilJAB and found much
better supported tha any theist religion,
it is actually supported by huge amounts of objective physical evidence,
which no theist religion is, and is not opposed by any objective
physical evidence, which some theist religions, the creatonists ones,
are.
> In over 150 years, there has never been one
> instance of a 'new species arising by natural
> selection'.
False claim. made by someone whose record for falsehood is substantial.
Uirgil
May 25, 2012, 11:43:29 PM5/25/12
to
In article
<475661d2-695b-49a1...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> An actual 'science' needs laws and
> court orders to keep religious nuts from
> objecting to it ?
Because IDiots like Liarboi Broiljab, DesignDenier, would rather believe
in that which is refuted by objective physical evidence than that which
is supported by it.
<475661d2-695b-49a1...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> An actual 'science' needs laws and
> court orders to keep religious nuts from
> objecting to it ?
Because IDiots like Liarboi Broiljab, DesignDenier, would rather believe
in that which is refuted by objective physical evidence than that which
is supported by it.
Message has been deleted
Marvin the Martian
May 26, 2012, 6:36:44 AM5/26/12
to
On Fri, 25 May 2012 17:49:59 -0600, Uirgil wrote:
> In article
> <5a24c239-8875-49c4...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
>> Marvin dilates,
>> Evolution is a logical conclusion and not a science.
>>
>> BroilJAB said,
>> Yet, it must be testable or it fails. Let's test it.
Since Evolution is a logical conclusion and not a science, it need not be
> In article
> <5a24c239-8875-49c4...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
>> Marvin dilates,
>> Evolution is a logical conclusion and not a science.
>>
>> BroilJAB said,
>> Yet, it must be testable or it fails. Let's test it.
falsifiable.
What you have to do is look at the premises and the logic, and see if
they preserve the truth. What you find is that evolution SHOULD happen.
> It has been tested by much better than IDiot BroilJAB and found much
> better supported tha any theist religion,
short for evolution to be tested. You demonstrate some principles of
genetics and population statistics, but develop a new species by
selection techniques? No, that hasn't been done, not even in fruit flies.
> it is actually supported by huge amounts of objective physical evidence,
> which no theist religion is,
> and is not opposed by any objective
> physical evidence,
> which some theist religions, the creatonists ones,
> are.
MUST have a creator.
Okay, going by that premise, something that can design all that must be
pretty complex itself, and it, too, must have a creator.
And a creator after that, and a creator after that...
It becomes a recursive argument depending upon it's own validity and thus
fails.
>> In over 150 years, there has never been one instance of a 'new species
>> arising by natural selection'.
>
> False claim. made by someone whose record for falsehood is substantial.
Marvin the Martian
May 26, 2012, 4:03:16 PM5/26/12
to
pocket? If it doesn't, and I don't see how Evolution does, then it's none
of your business.
Message has been deleted
Marvin the Martian
May 27, 2012, 10:49:41 AM5/27/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 02:53:46 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
> They're perfectly free to push their agenda .... recruit allies ....
>
> Falsehoods are countered by TRUTHS. 'Bad messages' are countered by
> BETTER messages. This is how things are supposed to be done in
> nominally free countries. What, some don't think they need to WORK at
> this stuff ???
The "agenda" of the religious creationist is to get the government out of
the religion debunking business.
The "agenda" of the government is to eliminate religion and indoctrinate
the young into believing government authorities and their silly
"science".
The error you made is thinking that the government is really teaching
evolution. That's obviously wrong, because elementary and high school
students lack the background in biology, population statistics, genetics,
and so on to understand evolution. It is taught as mindless dogma, which
is something the religious have caught on. Evolution is also not a
science, it is a rational and logical conclusion. Lastly, the version of
evolution that is being taught is in itself bullshit with magic genes and
the irrational belief that intelligence has NO adaptive advantage or
disadvantage, and is magically immune even to genetic drift.
>
> Falsehoods are countered by TRUTHS. 'Bad messages' are countered by
> BETTER messages. This is how things are supposed to be done in
> nominally free countries. What, some don't think they need to WORK at
> this stuff ???
The "agenda" of the religious creationist is to get the government out of
the religion debunking business.
The "agenda" of the government is to eliminate religion and indoctrinate
the young into believing government authorities and their silly
"science".
The error you made is thinking that the government is really teaching
evolution. That's obviously wrong, because elementary and high school
students lack the background in biology, population statistics, genetics,
and so on to understand evolution. It is taught as mindless dogma, which
is something the religious have caught on. Evolution is also not a
science, it is a rational and logical conclusion. Lastly, the version of
evolution that is being taught is in itself bullshit with magic genes and
the irrational belief that intelligence has NO adaptive advantage or
disadvantage, and is magically immune even to genetic drift.
Free Lunch
May 27, 2012, 10:53:33 AM5/27/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 09:49:41 -0500, Marvin the Martian
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sun, 27 May 2012 02:53:46 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>
>> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:43:29 -0600, Uirgil wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> <475661d2-695b-49a1...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> An actual 'science' needs laws and
>>>>> court orders to keep religious nuts from objecting to it ?
>>>>
>>>> Because IDiots like Liarboi Broiljab, DesignDenier, would rather
>>>> believe in that which is refuted by objective physical evidence than
>>>> that which is supported by it.
>>>
>>>So what? How does what other people believe break your bone or pick your
>>>pocket? If it doesn't, and I don't see how Evolution does, then it's
>>>none of your business.
>>
>> They're perfectly free to push their agenda .... recruit allies ....
>>
>> Falsehoods are countered by TRUTHS. 'Bad messages' are countered by
>> BETTER messages. This is how things are supposed to be done in
>> nominally free countries. What, some don't think they need to WORK at
>> this stuff ???
>
>The "agenda" of the religious creationist is to get the government out of
>the religion debunking business.
Anti-evolution creationism is a problem for the few religions that
preach it because the physical evidence proves that they are preaching
false doctrines.
>The "agenda" of the government is to eliminate religion and indoctrinate
>the young into believing government authorities and their silly
>"science".
In the US, our government lets religions do all sorts of stupid things
and lie to their members. You must not be familiar with the US.
>The error you made is thinking that the government is really teaching
>evolution. That's obviously wrong, because elementary and high school
>students lack the background in biology, population statistics, genetics,
>and so on to understand evolution. It is taught as mindless dogma, which
>is something the religious have caught on. Evolution is also not a
>science, it is a rational and logical conclusion. Lastly, the version of
>evolution that is being taught is in itself bullshit with magic genes and
>the irrational belief that intelligence has NO adaptive advantage or
>disadvantage, and is magically immune even to genetic drift.
Your ignorance of evolution is not suprising. Religious nuts who want to
believe things that have been proven false rarely try to find out why
they are wrong.
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sun, 27 May 2012 02:53:46 -0400, Mr.B1ack wrote:
>
>> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:43:29 -0600, Uirgil wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> <475661d2-695b-49a1...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> An actual 'science' needs laws and
>>>>> court orders to keep religious nuts from objecting to it ?
>>>>
>>>> Because IDiots like Liarboi Broiljab, DesignDenier, would rather
>>>> believe in that which is refuted by objective physical evidence than
>>>> that which is supported by it.
>>>
>>>So what? How does what other people believe break your bone or pick your
>>>pocket? If it doesn't, and I don't see how Evolution does, then it's
>>>none of your business.
>>
>> They're perfectly free to push their agenda .... recruit allies ....
>>
>> Falsehoods are countered by TRUTHS. 'Bad messages' are countered by
>> BETTER messages. This is how things are supposed to be done in
>> nominally free countries. What, some don't think they need to WORK at
>> this stuff ???
>
>The "agenda" of the religious creationist is to get the government out of
>the religion debunking business.
preach it because the physical evidence proves that they are preaching
false doctrines.
>The "agenda" of the government is to eliminate religion and indoctrinate
>the young into believing government authorities and their silly
>"science".
and lie to their members. You must not be familiar with the US.
>The error you made is thinking that the government is really teaching
>evolution. That's obviously wrong, because elementary and high school
>students lack the background in biology, population statistics, genetics,
>and so on to understand evolution. It is taught as mindless dogma, which
>is something the religious have caught on. Evolution is also not a
>science, it is a rational and logical conclusion. Lastly, the version of
>evolution that is being taught is in itself bullshit with magic genes and
>the irrational belief that intelligence has NO adaptive advantage or
>disadvantage, and is magically immune even to genetic drift.
believe things that have been proven false rarely try to find out why
they are wrong.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Free Lunch
May 27, 2012, 3:47:31 PM5/27/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 15:53:56 -0400, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote in
alt.talk.creationism:
> I think his complaint is *about* "ignorance" more
> than a product of ignorance.
>
> There is a veritable mountain of multi-disciplinary
> evidence which inescapably backs evolutionary processes
> as the driver of biological diversity on this planet.
> Physical anthropology, geology, physics, biochem/genetics,
> comparative anatomy .... they and their sub-disciplines
> have, over the past century or so, all contributed to
> the picture.
>
> I like to use the analogy of a picture-puzzle of Elvis.
> There's a point when you've got most of the pieces in
> place and can TELL it's Elvis, even discern whether
> it's young Elvis, Vegas Elvis or Fat Elvis. Those who
> persue anti-evolutionist agendas for political purposes
> choose to focus on the few remaining pieces yet to be
> fit in the puzzle and ignore the clear and obvious picture
> that's before them. They'd have us think it'll somehow
> magically become a picture of Lady GaGa if the pro-evo
> konspiracy would just hand over those missing pieces.
>
> But now here's the complaint - and it's one I've lodged
> in the past as well. Yer high-schoolers will NOT be
> given a rich education involving all those pieces of the
> puzzle that point to evolution over some cosmic zap-meister.
>
> They'll be TOLD, and maybe shown a few archaic fossils
> sans details. That's it. That's about all they have the
> time and budgets for, that's about all the 'average'
> student who doesn't give a crap about 'science' can
> absorb.
That's because critical thinking is not taught in school from an early
age. Kids, even young ones who cannot yet read, have rudimentary
analysis skills, but they need to understand how to hone those skills.
The problem is that those skills, applied when the kids are going to
their local religious instruction classes, make the teachers quite
uncomfortable or cause them to take offense. "How dare you question the
teaching we are conveying to you about God."
> So ... really ... the kiddies don't KNOW evolution is
> the truth, they're simply instructed to *believe* it's
> the truth. This is no different than those out to push
> a cosmic-zapmeister theory, quoting a few alleged
> 'miracles' as proof.
Then we need to teach kids how evidence works once they understand what
critical thinking and logic are.
> "But evolution can be BACKED UP !" Yep, but it ISN'T.
> 99.9 percent of those kiddies will NEVER go any deeper
> into the subject than what they suffered through in
> high-school science class. For them, evolution is a
> RELIGION, a *belief system*, and nothing more.
>
> So, the zap-meisters minions will say "You're just
> teaching the 'religion of evolution' in schools !".
> They are correct. It gives them some leverage.
They are teaching about evolution, and for many hours in all science
classes they are teaching about scientific knowledge, not about science
or how to do it. Giving kids real opportunities to practice science,
even if it is that they discover something that has been known for a
long time, is far more entertaining for both teachers and students than
lectures about facts.
> On the flip side, schools would be remiss if they DIDN'T
> at least assert the correctness of evolution. Public
> schools assert LOTS of things without spending years
> 'proving' each little bit. IMHO, it's the colleges
> that are in the 'proving' business ... public schools
> are more about stuffing brains with the best CONCLUSIONS
> availible at the moment and providing the TOOLS with
> which interested students can persue any given subject
> on their own (or at a college).
>
> SO ... the way to combat the Minions Of The Cosmic-ZapMeister
> is NOT to argue the details of Zap -vs- Un-Zap or argue about
> the fine definition of 'religion'. The secret is to clearly
> define what public schools are FOR and thus how they must
> operate, what they must teach. How many high-schoolers can
> cope with the math required to KNOW quantum-mechanics works
> after all ? Does that make mentioning it 'teaching religion' ?
> Google around for a formal proof that "2+2=4" ... apparently
> it involves over 25,000 individual steps. Should the schools
> stop teaching addition ???
>
> Framed THIS way, and empasizing all the OTHER 'unproven
> assertions' taught, the ZapMeisters case becomes very
> weak, to the point of irrelevancy. Their prime issue
> is NOT 'special' ... it's only because they've labored
> to phrase their case as IF it were "special" that it
> gets any attention at all.
>
> (oh, and there ARE some hard-lefties who really ARE out
> to deliberately undermine religion - because it helps
> the Marxist/socialist cause. This complicates things.)
I'm not worried about them. The very rich are doing a lot to help
socialism with their selfishness and greed and religious leaders do more
than any marxist to make religions look bad.
alt.talk.creationism:
> than a product of ignorance.
>
> There is a veritable mountain of multi-disciplinary
> evidence which inescapably backs evolutionary processes
> as the driver of biological diversity on this planet.
> Physical anthropology, geology, physics, biochem/genetics,
> comparative anatomy .... they and their sub-disciplines
> have, over the past century or so, all contributed to
> the picture.
>
> I like to use the analogy of a picture-puzzle of Elvis.
> There's a point when you've got most of the pieces in
> place and can TELL it's Elvis, even discern whether
> it's young Elvis, Vegas Elvis or Fat Elvis. Those who
> persue anti-evolutionist agendas for political purposes
> choose to focus on the few remaining pieces yet to be
> fit in the puzzle and ignore the clear and obvious picture
> that's before them. They'd have us think it'll somehow
> magically become a picture of Lady GaGa if the pro-evo
> konspiracy would just hand over those missing pieces.
>
> But now here's the complaint - and it's one I've lodged
> in the past as well. Yer high-schoolers will NOT be
> given a rich education involving all those pieces of the
> puzzle that point to evolution over some cosmic zap-meister.
>
> They'll be TOLD, and maybe shown a few archaic fossils
> sans details. That's it. That's about all they have the
> time and budgets for, that's about all the 'average'
> student who doesn't give a crap about 'science' can
> absorb.
That's because critical thinking is not taught in school from an early
age. Kids, even young ones who cannot yet read, have rudimentary
analysis skills, but they need to understand how to hone those skills.
The problem is that those skills, applied when the kids are going to
their local religious instruction classes, make the teachers quite
uncomfortable or cause them to take offense. "How dare you question the
teaching we are conveying to you about God."
> So ... really ... the kiddies don't KNOW evolution is
> the truth, they're simply instructed to *believe* it's
> the truth. This is no different than those out to push
> a cosmic-zapmeister theory, quoting a few alleged
> 'miracles' as proof.
Then we need to teach kids how evidence works once they understand what
critical thinking and logic are.
> "But evolution can be BACKED UP !" Yep, but it ISN'T.
> 99.9 percent of those kiddies will NEVER go any deeper
> into the subject than what they suffered through in
> high-school science class. For them, evolution is a
> RELIGION, a *belief system*, and nothing more.
>
> So, the zap-meisters minions will say "You're just
> teaching the 'religion of evolution' in schools !".
> They are correct. It gives them some leverage.
They are teaching about evolution, and for many hours in all science
classes they are teaching about scientific knowledge, not about science
or how to do it. Giving kids real opportunities to practice science,
even if it is that they discover something that has been known for a
long time, is far more entertaining for both teachers and students than
lectures about facts.
> On the flip side, schools would be remiss if they DIDN'T
> at least assert the correctness of evolution. Public
> schools assert LOTS of things without spending years
> 'proving' each little bit. IMHO, it's the colleges
> that are in the 'proving' business ... public schools
> are more about stuffing brains with the best CONCLUSIONS
> availible at the moment and providing the TOOLS with
> which interested students can persue any given subject
> on their own (or at a college).
>
> SO ... the way to combat the Minions Of The Cosmic-ZapMeister
> is NOT to argue the details of Zap -vs- Un-Zap or argue about
> the fine definition of 'religion'. The secret is to clearly
> define what public schools are FOR and thus how they must
> operate, what they must teach. How many high-schoolers can
> cope with the math required to KNOW quantum-mechanics works
> after all ? Does that make mentioning it 'teaching religion' ?
> Google around for a formal proof that "2+2=4" ... apparently
> it involves over 25,000 individual steps. Should the schools
> stop teaching addition ???
>
> Framed THIS way, and empasizing all the OTHER 'unproven
> assertions' taught, the ZapMeisters case becomes very
> weak, to the point of irrelevancy. Their prime issue
> is NOT 'special' ... it's only because they've labored
> to phrase their case as IF it were "special" that it
> gets any attention at all.
>
> (oh, and there ARE some hard-lefties who really ARE out
> to deliberately undermine religion - because it helps
> the Marxist/socialist cause. This complicates things.)
I'm not worried about them. The very rich are doing a lot to help
socialism with their selfishness and greed and religious leaders do more
than any marxist to make religions look bad.
Marvin the Martian
May 27, 2012, 6:26:48 PM5/27/12
to
their non-science version of evolution?
Unlike the silly non-science of creationism, these socialist false
doctrines are being used to form public policy and law. Like the "No
child left behind" act which is based on the socialist non-science belief
that all populations have exactly the same distribution of intelligence,
thus all teachers should be expected to perform equally well and all
businesses must hire a workforce that reflects the local demographics, or
be sued until bankrupt.
>>The "agenda" of the government is to eliminate religion and indoctrinate
>>the young into believing government authorities and their silly
>>"science".
>
> In the US, our government lets religions do all sorts of stupid things
> and lie to their members. You must not be familiar with the US.
the religions look trivial. Consider the national debt, the TSA,
"Homeland Security", we've been at war more than at peace since WW II,
and so on.
And you think the government doesn't lie?
>>The error you made is thinking that the government is really teaching
>>evolution. That's obviously wrong, because elementary and high school
>>students lack the background in biology, population statistics,
>>genetics, and so on to understand evolution. It is taught as mindless
>>dogma, which is something the religious have caught on. Evolution is
>>also not a science, it is a rational and logical conclusion. Lastly, the
>>version of evolution that is being taught is in itself bullshit with
>>magic genes and the irrational belief that intelligence has NO adaptive
>>advantage or disadvantage, and is magically immune even to genetic
>>drift.
>
> Your ignorance of evolution is not suprising. Religious nuts who want to
> believe things that have been proven false rarely try to find out why
> they are wrong.
human populations with exactly the same mean and standard deviation
again?
I love that bit of non-science.
If you don't know that one, then you're a hell of a lot more ignorant of
Evolution than I am. Or are you a "racist"? LOL!
Marvin the Martian
May 27, 2012, 6:43:34 PM5/27/12
to
skills was the Roman Catholic schools. The whole Trivium thing.
Logic is not taught in public schools. It was abandoned over half a
century ago. It was supposed to have been covered in English essay
writing class, but even that was abandoned in favor of "diversity"
replacing logic: everyone has a correct opinion!
And it is funny because, as I pointed out, there is NO WAY high school
students have the necessary background to understand evolution. So you're
only replacing the "How dare you question the teaching we are conveying
to you about God" with "How dare you question the teaching we are
conveying to you about science", only it ISN'T science, it is pure non-
science.
>> So ... really ... the kiddies don't KNOW evolution is the truth,
>> they're simply instructed to *believe* it's the truth. This is no
>> different than those out to push a cosmic-zapmeister theory, quoting
>> a few alleged 'miracles' as proof.
>
> Then we need to teach kids how evidence works once they understand what
> critical thinking and logic are.
biology and all that when you can't even teach half of them how to read?
That's absurd, and your priories are screwed up.
>> "But evolution can be BACKED UP !" Yep, but it ISN'T. 99.9 percent of
>> those kiddies will NEVER go any deeper into the subject than what
>> they suffered through in high-school science class. For them,
>> evolution is a RELIGION, a *belief system*, and nothing more.
>>
>> So, the zap-meisters minions will say "You're just teaching the
>> 'religion of evolution' in schools !". They are correct. It gives
>> them some leverage.
>
> They are teaching about evolution,
on political ideology.
> and for many hours in all science
> classes
thus it is not a science.
> they are teaching about scientific knowledge, not about science
> or how to do it. Giving kids real opportunities to practice science,
> even if it is that they discover something that has been known for a
> long time, is far more entertaining for both teachers and students than
> lectures about facts.
they can't understand and say "believe it because I say it is science".
Especially when what you're "teaching" isn't even a real science.
is nothing more than anti-religion political propaganda, and you support
it.
Message has been deleted
de...@dudu.org
May 27, 2012, 10:40:13 PM5/27/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 17:43:34 -0500, Marvin the Martian
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> I'm not worried about them. The very rich are doing a lot to help
>> socialism with their selfishness and greed and religious leaders do more
>> than any marxist to make religions look bad.
>
>So, you're admitting that the PC version of evolution taught in schools
>is nothing more than anti-religion political propaganda, and you support
>it.
You are so full of shit it's almost enough to convince someone that we
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> I'm not worried about them. The very rich are doing a lot to help
>> socialism with their selfishness and greed and religious leaders do more
>> than any marxist to make religions look bad.
>
>So, you're admitting that the PC version of evolution taught in schools
>is nothing more than anti-religion political propaganda, and you support
>it.
in fact did not evolve. Evolution IS science. Just because you
aren't smart enough to understand the mechanisms doesn't mean it isn't
the truth.
Marvin the Martian
May 27, 2012, 10:44:33 PM5/27/12
to
Message has been deleted
de...@dudu.org
May 28, 2012, 12:10:11 PM5/28/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 21:44:33 -0500, Marvin the Martian
you are a stupid fool.
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 May 2012 20:40:13 -0600, deep wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 17:43:34 -0500, Marvin the Martian
>> <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I'm not worried about them. The very rich are doing a lot to help
>>>> socialism with their selfishness and greed and religious leaders do
>>>> more than any marxist to make religions look bad.
>>>
>>>So, you're admitting that the PC version of evolution taught in schools
>>>is nothing more than anti-religion political propaganda, and you support
>>>it.
>>
>> You are so full of shit it's almost enough to convince someone that we
>> in fact did not evolve. Evolution IS science. Just because you aren't
>> smart enough to understand the mechanisms doesn't mean it isn't the
>> truth.
>
>I'll take that as a yes, then.
No, you can take that as knowing that thinking, educated people think
>On Sun, 27 May 2012 20:40:13 -0600, deep wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 17:43:34 -0500, Marvin the Martian
>> <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I'm not worried about them. The very rich are doing a lot to help
>>>> socialism with their selfishness and greed and religious leaders do
>>>> more than any marxist to make religions look bad.
>>>
>>>So, you're admitting that the PC version of evolution taught in schools
>>>is nothing more than anti-religion political propaganda, and you support
>>>it.
>>
>> You are so full of shit it's almost enough to convince someone that we
>> in fact did not evolve. Evolution IS science. Just because you aren't
>> smart enough to understand the mechanisms doesn't mean it isn't the
>> truth.
>
>I'll take that as a yes, then.
you are a stupid fool.
0 new messages