By their fruits you will know them...
Ron O
are listed so that anyone on either side can see just what kind of
basket cases are claiming to be on that side. If you go to Google
groups you can click on their profiles and have access to their
posts. There is nothing better to tell any thinking human being that
the anti-evolution creationist faction is a suspect and basically a
collection of the ignorant, incompetent and dishonest than reading
what the supporters write.
I will admit that this is a usually a select group of posters. Even
though these are the only anti-science creationist posters posting at
this time they do not likely represent the majority of like minded
individuals out in general society. These are the only types left
once they find out how badly they have been lied to about this issue
and how worthless the anti-evolution arguments are. It has to take a
special person to be able to keep posting nonsense for months or
years.
(M)adman: addledman the attention starved poster child of the anti-
science brigade just keeps getting worse if that is at all possible at
this time. It is pretty easy to determine who the nitwit is if you
read a couple of adman's posts.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fcb0dfc0d3f2cb1f?hl=en
Spintronic is degenerating badly. He is also posting under Bill and
Bill254 and some others and is now professing drug problems. Enough
said.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f7c01648d0a93cc5?hl=en
Sean Pitman is posting and running again.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d92e3a35416f3793?hl=en
Glenn is still around.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fc5402e99dc445e5?hl=en
Ray is still Ray and the only real ChristianTM posting on TO.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ff389c111aeb2c7d?hl=en
Nando is still as lost as ever.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f51315e8173b5639?hl=en
NashTon is still posting.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/853c58135a044b63?hl=en
For some reason, Backspace came back.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/37a55dcda355addd?hl=en
Should Damaeus be placed among the worthy?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/896f087371bedff3?hl=en
Pagano hasn't made an apperance lately or I'd have put him in. He has
posted since the last update 3 or 4 months ago.
If I have missed anyone? Add them to the list.
raven1
wrote:
>Spintronic is degenerating badly. He is also posting under Bill and
>Bill254 and some others and is now professing drug problems.
Imagine everyone's surprise.
Frank J
> It is about time for a post where the anti-science creationist posters
> are listed so that anyone on either side can see just what kind of
> basket cases are claiming to be on that side. If you go to Google
> groups you can click on their profiles and have access to their
> posts. There is nothing better to tell any thinking human being that
> the anti-evolution creationist faction is a suspect and basically a
> collection of the ignorant, incompetent and dishonest than reading
> what the supporters write.
>
> I will admit that this is a usually a select group of posters. Even
> though these are the only anti-science creationist posters posting at
> this time they do not likely represent the majority of like minded
> individuals out in general society. These are the only types left
> once they find out how badly they have been lied to about this issue
> and how worthless the anti-evolution arguments are. It has to take a
> special person to be able to keep posting nonsense for months or
> years.
>
> (M)adman: addledman the attention starved poster child of the anti-
> science brigade just keeps getting worse if that is at all possible at
> this time. It is pretty easy to determine who the nitwit is if you
> read a couple of adman's posts.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fcb0dfc0d3f2cb1f?hl=en
>
> Spintronic is degenerating badly. He is also posting under Bill and
> Bill254 and some others and is now professing drug problems. Enough
>
> Sean Pitman is posting and running again.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d92e3a35416f3793?hl=en
>
>
> Ray is still Ray and the only real ChristianTM posting on TO.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ff389c111aeb2c7d?hl=en
>
> Nando is still as lost as ever.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f51315e8173b5639?hl=en
>
>
> For some reason, Backspace came back.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/37a55dcda355addd?hl=en
>
> Should Damaeus be placed among the worthy?http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/896f087371bedff3?hl=en
>
> Pagano hasn't made an apperance lately or I'd have put him in. He has
> posted since the last update 3 or 4 months ago.
>
> If I have missed anyone? Add them to the list.
McCoy is I think like Pagano - increasingly scarce in the last few
years, and possibly absent the last few months.
Fossil Lin is either an Ed Conrad cheerleader, or possibly Ed himself.
He (she?) and the other creationists and trolls know better that to
reply to each other given how their radical disagreements might
undermine the big tent.
Suzanne comes and goes, but it has been a while.
Possibly gone for good are Average Joe, Roadrunner, Nowhere Man, Zoe,
Pastor Dave, Big Discusser (age 87 if still around), Jason Gastrich...
[M]adman
*Yawn*
er...@swva.net
Can't be bothered to learn anything, eh?
Eric Root
Garamond Lethe
> Possibly gone for good are Average Joe, Roadrunner, Nowhere Man, Zoe,
> Pastor Dave, Big Discusser (age 87 if still around), Jason Gastrich...
Evopeach. Someone2. (Do I detect some desperate unconscious repression
here?)
roki...@cox.net
Uncle Davey made a recent comeback over at the Panda's Thumb, but I
don't think that he posted to TO recently.
Did I miss anyone from the last couple of weeks? I only went back a
few days sampling posts.
Ron Okimoto
[M]adman
nando_r...@yahoo.com
in science by anticipation and decision based thinking. Creationism
will then be the foundation of all sciences again.
Darwinism is also going down for its connection to nazism. Natural
selection was the theme of Hitlers Mein Kampf, it was taught from the
schoolbook for the Hitleryouth in reference to Darwin, and was
mentioned in the Wannsee protocol as a means of genocide.
If you want to get away from producing a science about good and evil,
then you have to categorize between the spiritual and the material.
Spiritual
subjective
by decision
you create information yourself
faith
material
objective
by measurement
passing on information you find in the universe
knowledge
What Darwinists generally do to avoid a science of good and evil is to
categorize between the material and the human. But its not working
when the human being becomes the subject of scientific investigation.
Then automatically good and evil also become subject of scientific
study, and you get a science of good and evil, nazism etc.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Natural selection was the theme of Hitlers Mein Kampf
That's a big big lie. Natural selection isn't even mentioned in Mein
Kampf and Hitler did not like the idea. God on the other hand...
The connection between Darwin's ideas and the Nazi party are well
documented. They took a fact and used it to support their ideas, their
ideas where not based upon facts.
Frank J
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You have no chance, cause and effect thinking is going to be replaced
> in science by anticipation and decision based thinking. Creationism
> will then be the foundation of all sciences again.
Did you run that by the "ID is not creationism" Discovery Institute?
How did they respond?
>
> Darwinism is also going down for its connection to nazism.
That's nice, but *evolutionary biology* is here to stay. If *it* had
any connection to nazism - and I note how scam artists are *very*
careful to target "Darwinism" caricarure whenever they fantasize about
any connection - then we would just have to live with it and use our
God-given free will to reject any urge to do bad things.
(snip)
nando_r...@yahoo.com
extension of his madness, this 1 belief is supposed to solve all his
deep problems, and also all society problems. The 1 belief is natural
selection based on a struggle for life.
And Darwinists / atheists are indeed guilty for promoting this nazi
belief. They could have, and should have, categorized between material
and spiritual, as was common up untill Darwinism.
For example previous to Darwinism racism was held in check by phrases
such as, judge a man by whats in his heart / choices, not the color of
his skin etc. Always a distinction is made between material man and
spiritual man. Atheists and Darwinists destroyed that distinction in a
very arrogant way.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
roki...@cox.net
By their fruits you will know them.
Nando is fruity in more ways than one and a prime example of why the
anti-science creationists haven't got a prayer in changing science in
the least. If the psychos got enough political power they could
suppress science, but they can't change reality with mental
incompetence.
Ron Okimoto
nando_r...@yahoo.com
the hyperincursive maths of Dubois, and experimentally verified. But
the catch is that free will requires a different time principle. It
requires that things act according to their future. The theory applies
everywhere time applies, everywhere there is a future, so the theory
applies to everything in the universe. It requires that everything
operates per decision, either as subject to decision, or as a decider.
So if its true that you have free will, then creationism will surely
become the foundation of science.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
roki...@cox.net
Hey, addled man where is that honest and valid anti-evolution argument
that you should have found by now? You've have had hundreds blow up
in your face, but you keep coming back and facing the "PAT" answers
with more stupid and dishonest arguiment. Just one honest and valid
creationist argument. Why can't you put one up? Do you know what it
means to be lied to? Do you understand dishonest and incompetent
arguments when you are exposed to them? If you don't, why can't you
put up just one valid and honest creationist anti-evolution argument
that you have been able to verify means what you think. If you think
that they have all been honest and valid you could just put up anyone
of them, but you never put up a single one as being honest and valid.
Why is that? You don't seem to be as addled as you make out.
Ron Okimoto
nando_r...@yahoo.com
it even today these Darwinists are virulent. In China they have a
masive eugenics program underway.
But you can get much more direct evidence of Darwinist virulence on
this forum. They do not allow the belief in anything spiritual, they
do not allow faith of any kind. There is no freedom of religion among
Darwinists. So if you profess the belief in anything spiritual on this
forum then you will surely be reprimanded by the Darwinists, and you
will have your evidence of the fruits of Darwinism
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Kent Paul Dolan
> As mentioned. Hitler is a 1 belief kind of guy.
> That 1 belief is an extension of his madness, this
> 1 belief is supposed to solve all his deep
> problems, and also all society problems. The 1
> belief is natural selection based on a struggle
> for life.
Well, no, but thanks for playing.
> And Darwinists / atheists
You _really_ need to try harder to wrap your tiny
little mind around the great big idea that not all
atheists are Darwinists, and that almost all
Darwinists are theists.
> are indeed guilty for promoting this nazi belief.
Well, no, since, unfortunately for your rhetoric,
Charles Darwin died long before there were Nazis,
and so as the paradigmatic Darwinist, could not, in
his writing, have been "promoting this nazi belief".
I'm afraid the connection between your mind and any
universe where reality and rationality hold sway has
long, long ago been dissevered.
> They could have, and should have, categorized
> between material and spiritual, as was common up
> untill(sic) Darwinism.
Your evidence for this ridiculous claim will somehow
have to overturn all of human history. Even your own
religion is on record for 13 centuries as requiring
the murder of everyone not sharing your faith who
will not convert to it, and for following up that
requirement with centuries of bloody warfare and
slaughter of innocents.
> For example previous to Darwinism racism was held
> in check by phrases such as, judge a man by whats
> in his heart / choices, not the color of his skin
> etc. Always a distinction is made between material
> man and spiritual man. Atheists and Darwinists
> destroyed that distinction in a very arrogant way.
That's nice. I'm sure all the peoples enslaved as
"barely better than animals", all during many
millennia before Darwin was born, in every part of
the world, will be happy to find out that they
couldn't have known what real racism is until
Charles Darwin came along to inform their oppressors.
So tell me, what school for idiots teaches your
particular variety of idiocy?
xanthian.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Garamond Lethe
<cartogr...@gmail.com>:
Also: Karl "Woodpecker" Crawford. Ted "Flying Feral
Chickens" Holden. Tony "Declare Victory and Run" Pagano
(intermittently).
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As mentioned. Hitler is a 1 belief kind of guy. That 1 belief is an
> extension of his madness, this 1 belief is supposed to solve all his
> deep problems, and also all society problems. The 1 belief is natural
> selection based on a struggle for life.
except, of course, christian persecution of jews preceded naziism by a
thousand years.
so you're a liar.
>
> And Darwinists / atheists are indeed guilty for promoting this nazi
> belief. They could have, and should have, categorized between material
> and spiritual, as was common up untill Darwinism.
except ttha TODAY all the nazis are islamist fanatics. it is YOUR
friends who destroyed the WTC. YOUR friends who murder christians for
imagined insults to the prophet, YOUR friends who liegalized rape.
that's creationism.
it leads to genocide.
>
> For example previous to Darwinism racism
there's a problem: the greatest slave traders in history were muslims.
islamists murder THEN try to blame others for their genocide.
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You have no chance, cause and effect thinking is going to be replaced
> in science by anticipation and decision based thinking. Creationism
> will then be the foundation of all sciences again.
IOW you guys HAD the ball...you dropped it with your superstititous
incompetence NOW you say you're gonna get it again
i dont THINK so...
>
> Darwinism is also going down for its connection to nazism.
nando..islam is the greatest threat to world peace today. YOU are an
islamist who supports the forceful destructoin of the christian
religion. the only nazis on the planet today are people like YOU who
think islam must be imposed by force
or have you forgotten that muslims in afghanistan last week legalized
rape....in saudi arabia last week an islamist judge approved the
marriage of an 8 year old girl to a 46 year old guy
is THIS the type of freedom you islamists have in mind?
YOU are the nazis.
Natural
> selection was the theme of Hitlers Mein Kampf, it was taught from the
> schoolbook for the Hitleryouth in reference to Darwin, and was
> mentioned in the Wannsee protocol as a means of genocide.
unfortunately this is not the case. christian persecution of jews
preceded the nazis by a thousand years.
and every single slave owner in american history was a creationist.
slavery was part of the nazi agenda.
so you're a liar.
>
> If you want to get away from producing a science about good and evil,
> then you have to categorize between the spiritual and the material.
creationists cant even tell us why people get sick from drinking
sewage. is that the return to creationism you had in mind?
>
> What Darwinists generally do to avoid a science of good and evil is to
> categorize between the material and the human. But its not working
> when the human being becomes the subject of scientific investigation.
> Then automatically good and evil also become subject of scientific
> study, and you get a science of good and evil, nazism etc.
>
except in secular countries, women and homosexuals are human beings.
in muslim countires they are slaves.
that's your freedom
wf3h
is that why islamists today call for the murder of jews?
creationism leads to slavery and genocide.
And make no mistake about
> it even today these Darwinists are virulent. In China they have a
> masive eugenics program underway.
as opposed to iraq where muslmis murder homosexuals by the dozen?
you're incapable of looking at your own religoin and seeing how evil
it is
nando_r...@yahoo.com
I profess, by faith, as revealed in the Quran, that the universe was
created by God, and will end up in His final judgement.
Well this profession has some factual assertions, that at the
beginning and end of the universe are choices, and some faith parts,
that God owns those choices.
Now lets see if or not I will get reprimanded by the Darwinists.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Garamond Lethe
> On 12 Apr 2009 21:55:58 GMT, the following appeared in talk.origins,
> posted by Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:11:20 -0700, Frank J wrote:
>>
>>> Possibly gone for good are Average Joe, Roadrunner, Nowhere Man, Zoe,
>>> Pastor Dave, Big Discusser (age 87 if still around), Jason Gastrich...
>>
>>Evopeach. Someone2. (Do I detect some desperate unconscious repression
>>here?)
>
> Also: Karl "Woodpecker" Crawford. Ted "Flying Feral Chickens" Holden.
> Tony "Declare Victory and Run" Pagano (intermittently).
Aerion.
wf3h
your view of islamism:
-christianity must be destroyed, so you say, in the name of muslim
unity
-although creatioinism is a failure it's true
-you ignore the fact some of the biggest slave traders in history were
muslims
-you ignore the fact every american slave owner was a creationist
of course you'll try to lie your way out of the facts
nando_r...@yahoo.com
anti-semitism before Darwinism. This kind of logic is typical of
people who think in terms of cause and effect. Lets extend this logic.
Anti-semitism could not be caused by Christianity, because the Romans
were anti-semitic prior to Christianity even existed.
Its twisted logic, it doesnt work, yet repeated time and again, three
times so far in this thread. And they will keep repeating it because
this logic is how their mind works. Like in some laboratory trying to
isolate the working substance.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Darwinism could not have caused nazism, because there was christian
> anti-semitism before Darwinism. This kind of logic is typical of
> people who think in terms of cause and effect. Lets extend this logic.
> Anti-semitism could not be caused by Christianity, because the Romans
nando has severe confusion caused by his islamist fanaticism
the romans could not have been 'anti semitic' because the concept of
jews as a race did not exist in roman times. they WERE anti jewish
which is a different matter.
but nando ignores the widespread prevalence of racial hatred of jews
in christianity BEFORE darwin. he ignores the widespread use of
slavery BEFORE darwin based on race. in fact, there's no basis to his
argument at all because every social evil he accuses science of
committing was done by muslims and christians CENTURIES before darwin
AND islamists continue those today. hatred and murder of women, gays
and christians is common in many muslim countries. in fact the more
muslim a country IS the more likely it is to be repressive.
nando says 'cause and effect' because thinking in terms of facts and
time destroys his argument. what his argument REALLY says is that
nando is right because he's a fanatical hater of the human race,
based on his view of islam
there are millions of islamists who agree with him. some of them got
their pilots licenses and used them on 9/11. that's what creationist
islam leads to.
wf3h
> in science by anticipation and decision based thinking. Creationism
> will then be the foundation of all sciences again.
>
> Darwinism is also going down for its connection to nazism. Natural
> selection was the theme of Hitlers Mein Kampf, it was taught from the
> schoolbook for the Hitleryouth in reference to Darwin, and was
> mentioned in the Wannsee protocol as a means of genocide.
>
> If you want to get away from producing a science about good and evil,
> then you have to categorize between the spiritual and the material.
>
actually nando is right. i've come to the conclusion his method leads
to truth.
unfortunately it proves he's wrong. nando says cause and effect is
wrong. that we can use anticipatory thinking to determine events. on
that basis i say this:
naziism was caused by something that hasn't happened yet. yep. that's
true. 200 years from now something is going to happen that will cause
the murder of jews in 1942
how is this possible?
because nando says it is.
Lee Jay
Interesting, then, that it was *the scientists* that designed the
planes, ships, bombs, tanks, guns, etc. that destroyed Hitler's Nazi
Germany, and scientists almost unanimously accept the theory of
evolution.
Lee Jay
Burkhard
Unmitigated Nonsense. Darwin teaches that all races are related, which
is detrimentally opposed to typical racist doctrine that emphasises
difference. Under Nazism, you had to show that your ancestors up until
1750 were "Aryans" if you wanted to join the SS, and known ancestors
even beyond that date prevented you from joining. Reading and
understanding the ToE would have told them how stupid this is.
as for the pre-Darwin days: That is even bigger nonsense. Agassiz
predated Darwin, and Darwin forcefully clashed with him over the issue
of race. The creationist Agassiz had developed a racial
classification scheme that he used to defend slavery - based on the
idea that God had cerated black people to be slaves "by nature". (For
example, Louis Agassiz, "Diversity of Origin of the Human Races",
Christian Examiner 49 (July 1850), 110-145.)
Some more on creationist/religious positions through the ages and
racism?
Al-Abshibi (1388-1446) : "It is said that when the [black] slave is
sated, he fornicates, when he is hungry, he steals
(Lewis, Bernard (2002). Race and Slavery in the Middle East. Oxford
University Press. pp. 93)
The Dominican philosopher Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda (1494 - 1573) argued
that "Indians" were natural slaves because they had no souls, and were
therefore beneath humanity. Enslaving them was therefore in
accordance with Catholic theology and natural law.
Henri de Boulainvilliers (1658–1722), divided the nation of France
between two races, the aristocratic, He also talked a lot about the
"right of the strongest" soemthing you falsely attribute to Darwinism,
btw.
The creationist Linnaeus (1707–78) too applied the concept of "race"
as applied to humans. Within Homo sapiens he proposed four taxa
Americanus, Asiaticus, Africanus, and Europeanus, based on skin
color. Each race had certain characteristics: Native Americans are
reddish, stubborn, and short tempered. Africans are black, relaxed and
negligent. Asians are yellow, avaricious, and easily distracted.
Europeans are white, gentle, and inventive. (Linnaeus, Carl. Systema
Naturae (1767), p. 29)
Edward Long (August 23, 1734 - March 13, 1813) developed in 1774 a
similar race based classification scheme, and wrote about black people
thus: “bestial manners, stupidity and vices which debase their
brethren";
Christoph Meiners (1747-1810) developed a deeply racists theory on
spiritual and aesthetic grounds . Spirituality and beauty go for him
hand in hand, and since only people of "Caucasian stock" are
beautiful, only they are truly spiritual. Black people are not better
than apes since they are a) ugly and b) therefore also incapable of
spiritual feelings (give me good old materialism any time, there you
don;t get this sort of thing) "The black and ugly people are distinct
from the white and beautiful people by their sad lack in virtue and
their terrible vices" (Grundriß der Geschichte der Menschheit (1785)
p. 43. On the role of the spiritual in Meiners racism, see the article
by Rupp-Eisenreich: Les choses occultes en histoire des sciences
humaines" L' Ethnographie (1983)
Georges Cuvier, another anti-Darwinist, took up this idea and
developed a point system to allocate beauty to races.
Martin S. Staum, Labeling People: French Scholars on Society, Race,
and Empire, 1815-1848. (not teh date, all preceeding Darwin)
Now, after all this science, let's have (even more) spirituality and
racism:
Anne Catherine Emmerich: (1774 - February 9, 1824) Roman Catholic
Augustinian nun, stigmatic, mystic, visionary and ecstatic:
""I saw the curse pronounced by Noah upon Ham moving toward the latter
like a black cloud and obscuring him. His skin lost its whiteness, he
grew darker. His sin was the sin of sacrilege, the sin of one who
would forcibly enter the Ark of the Covenant. I saw a most corrupt
race descend from Ham and sink deeper and deeper in darkness. I see
that the black, idolatrous, stupid nations are the descendants of Ham.
Their color is due, not to the rays of the sun, but to the dark source
whence those degraded races sprang"
The "Curse of Ham" was used through the century as Christian excuse
for racism and slavery.
William Joseph Simmons, the founder of the "second clan", was a
preacher for the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.
http://www.ohs.org/education/oregonhistory/historical_records/dspDocu...
"This image shows a photograph from the early 1920s, probably in
Portland, in which robed and hooded Ku Klux Klan members share a stage
with members of the Royal Riders of the Red Robe, a Klan auxiliary for
foreign-born white Protestants. A large banner reading “Jesus Saves”
occupies a prominent position on the wall at the rear of the stage and
testifies to the strong role that Protestantism played in the KKK
philosophy of “100 percent Americanism.”
and
"The Klan philosophy of “100 percent Americanism” rested primarily on
three attributes: belief in a philosophy of white supremacy; adherence
to Protestant or “American” Christianity; and the superiority of
native-born Americans. Given Oregon’s long history of racial exclusion
and the fact that almost 90 percent of the state’s population in the
early 1920s was native-born, white, and protestant, Klan organizers
had little trouble enrolling new members."
see for references Saalfeld, Lawrence J. Forces of Prejudice in
Oregon, 1920-1925. Portland, Ore.: 1984.
Horowitz, David. Inside the Klavern: The Secret History of a Ku Klux
Klan of the 1920s. Carbondale, Ill.: 1999.
Stephen R. Haynes Noah's Curse : The Biblical Justification of
American Slavery:
"[the genesis justification] appealed to racial slavery because Ham
acted like you expected a black man to act," "Slavery was necessary
in the white Southern mind to control the ungovernable black. Slavery
is the response to Ham's rebellious behavior."
See also Goldenberg, David, The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in
Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam
John Smith
He-e-r-r-r-s-s-s-s- fruity!
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fcd5671a-e9ec-49b2...@k41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
roki...@cox.net
What was the primary excuse before "Darwinism" existed? What is
probably still the primary excuse for abusing someone else? Excuses
are not the real reasons are they?
Folks, it doesn't get any better than this. Just look up more Nando
posts and check it out.
Ron Okimoto
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<2519ec7d-46e7-4928...@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
> But you can get much more direct evidence of Darwinist virulence on
> this forum. They do not allow the belief in anything spiritual, they
> do not allow faith of any kind. There is no freedom of religion among
> Darwinists. So if you profess the belief in anything spiritual on this
> forum then you will surely be reprimanded by the Darwinists, and you
> will have your evidence of the fruits of Darwinism
Amazing. No-one's ever 'reprimanded' _me_ for my faith, and I've been posting
here for _years_.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Frank J
I don't know if the Quran forbids it, but it's bad "netiquette" to
snip the post to evade questions and not at least leave a courtesy
indication that something was snipped.
So I'll repost the questions:
Frank J
I realize that you need a caricature to attack because you are aware
that you don't have a prayer against evolutionary biology, but are you
trying to set a record for how many times "Darwinism/Darwinist(s)"
appears per given number of words?
Chris
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:11:20 -0700, Frank J wrote:
> > Possibly gone for good are Average Joe, Roadrunner, Nowhere Man, Zoe,
> > Pastor Dave, Big Discusser (age 87 if still around), Jason Gastrich...
>
> Evopeach. Someone2. (Do I detect some desperate unconscious repression
> here?)
Mike Goodrich. Uncle Davy recently floated up from the muck of his
stagnant pond like a bubble of march gas, making his noisome presence
known.
Chris
Kent Paul Dolan
Well, my question about your disconnect with reality
is well answered; you don't even grasp the concept
of cause and effect.
Of course science is incomprehensible to you, as a
result. You think that Darwin was "free" to
influence people who died 4000 years before he
lived. What a pile of fewmets you keep in your skull.
The estimate of your cowardice widely bruited about
the newsgroup is also confirmed. Rather than
answering your critics point by point, you post this
blanket idiocy instead as part of your run for the
horizon, tail tucked in your typical state of
endless self-humiliation.
xanthian.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
A very unusual post from nando. No psychotic rants, just pure
deliberate lies.
er...@swva.net
Except there are few if any "Darwinists" on this forum, just a lot of
people who generally accept science.
Eric Root
nando_r...@yahoo.com
is as much wrong as I say it is, both morally and factually. But then
you forget, there is still the BIG unsettled issue of free will in
science. If you take a wrong position on that issue, its credible that
you make a fundamental mistake, and that you end up very, very far
from the truth. Free will is still not settled in science, its also
not settled in psychology, the issue is up in the air, and if free
will is fundamental, then the whole of science is up in the air with
it.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Ray Martinez
> It is about time for a post where the anti-science creationist posters
> are listed so that anyone on either side can see just what kind of
> basket cases are claiming to be on that side. If you go to Google
> groups you can click on their profiles and have access to their
> posts. There is nothing better to tell any thinking human being that
> the anti-evolution creationist faction is a suspect and basically a
> what the supporters write.
>
> I will admit that this is a usually a select group of posters. Even
> though these are the only anti-science creationist posters posting at
> this time they do not likely represent the majority of like minded
> individuals out in general society. These are the only types left
> once they find out how badly they have been lied to about this issue
> and how worthless the anti-evolution arguments are. It has to take a
> special person to be able to keep posting nonsense for months or
> years.
>
Could we expect a Richard Dawkins ass kisser to say anything else
about his enemies? I see no insult in being rejected by a
"Christian" (= Ron Okimoto) who agrees with arch-Atheist Richard
Dawkins concerning the origin of living things, past and present.
Not only is "Christian" Ron Okimoto self-evidently confused and/or
deluded-deceived, since Christians and Atheists do not agree on origin
of living things, past and present, Ron Okimoto fails to point out
that most of the persons that he has branded to be "anti-evolution"
are in fact evolutionists who accept natural selection.
> (M)adman: addledman the attention starved poster child of the anti-
> science brigade just keeps getting worse if that is at all possible at
> this time. It is pretty easy to determine who the nitwit is if you
> read a couple of adman's posts.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fcb0dfc0d3f2cb1f?hl=en
>
Madman argues forcefully for the main claim of Darwinism:
microevolution. Again, Ron failed to tell the audience this all
important fact.
SNIP....
>
> Sean Pitman is posting and running
> again.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d92e3a35416f3793?hl=en
>
Sean Pitman argues forcefully for the two main claims of Darwinism:
microevolution and natural selection. One of his email addresses has
the phrase "natural selection" in it.
> Glenn is still around.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fc5402e99dc445e5?hl=en
>
Glenn accepts the main claim of Darwinism: microevolution. He probably
accepts natural selection too.
> Ray is still Ray and the only real [Creationist-IDist] TM posting on
> TO.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ff389c111aeb2c7d?hl=en
>
Note: I deleted and corrected a lie by adding the bracket.
I reject microevolution and natural selection because no evidence
exists supporting these science fiction concepts. Both concepts only
exist in the imagination of Darwinists----that is the extent of their
existence.
FACT: Real Creationists-IDists do not support the **main claims** of
their enemy (= Darwinism). Therefore I am the only real Creationist-
IDist on this particular public forum.
Both Madman and Sean Pitman accept evolution and natural selection. As
does Ken Ham and AiG, and Ron Okimoto, Richard Dawkins, Ken Miller,
Michael Behe, John Harshman, Garamond Lethe, John Stockwell, Frank
James, Dana Tweedy, Richard Clayton, Howard Hershey, etc.etc.
The point is: the Fundies are in Darwin's camp. The Bible is SO true:
by their fruits you will know them. The peaceful harmony between
religious Fundamentalists and Atheist lunatics, concerning the **main
claims** of Darwinism, tells honest and objective persons that the
Darwin camp is comprised with the worst of the worst (= Fundies and
Atheists).
Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere
Creationist-species immutabilist, Paleyan Designist, British Natural
Theologian.
wf3h
except science works. it's why you have a computer
mohammed didnt have one. creationism is worthless
Ray Martinez
Yes, computers are the product of intelligent design.
> mohammed didnt have one. creationism is worthless
Neither did Darwin. Evolution is Atheism ideology.
Ray
Lee Jay
> On Apr 14, 3:21 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 14, 4:35 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Some of you may question that it cant be true that mainstream science
> > > is as much wrong as I say it is, both morally and factually. But then
> > > you forget, there is still the BIG unsettled issue of free will in
> > > science. If you take a wrong position on that issue, its credible that
> > > you make a fundamental mistake, and that you end up very, very far
> > > from the truth. Free will is still not settled in science, its also
> > > not settled in psychology, the issue is up in the air, and if free
> > > will is fundamental, then the whole of science is up in the air with
> > > it.
>
> > > regards,
> > > Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
> > except science works. it's why you have a computer
>
> Yes, computers are the product of intelligent design.
As is the Theory of Evolution.
> > mohammed didnt have one. creationism is worthless
>
> Neither did Darwin. Evolution is Atheism ideology.
Evolution is the observed fact that populations change over time. The
Theory of Evolution is the intelligently-designed explanation for that
observation.
Lee Jay
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Evolution rejects ID----stupid. Evolution says Intelligence and Design
do not exist in nature.
That's why this Usenet exists and that's why the ID v. Evolution
debate exists----stupid.
Read: "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design" by
Michael Shermer (2006) for a basic grasp.
Ray
wf3h
> On Apr 14, 3:21 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 14, 4:35 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Some of you may question that it cant be true that mainstream science
> > > is as much wrong as I say it is, both morally and factually. But then
> > > you forget, there is still the BIG unsettled issue of free will in
> > > science. If you take a wrong position on that issue, its credible that
> > > you make a fundamental mistake, and that you end up very, very far
> > > from the truth. Free will is still not settled in science, its also
> > > not settled in psychology, the issue is up in the air, and if free
> > > will is fundamental, then the whole of science is up in the air with
> > > it.
>
> > > regards,
> > > Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
> > except science works. it's why you have a computer
>
> Yes, computers are the product of intelligent design
using the natural laws of physics. any supernaturalism there?
uh... NOPE
>
> > mohammed didnt have one. creationism is worthless
>
> Neither did Darwin. Evolution is Atheism ideology.
>
computers came 100 years after darwin because of science
creationism had nothing for 2000 years AND had no potential to invent
computers
you have to learn to think, ray. methodological naturalism led to the
computer. creationism led nowhere
it's useless
Dana Tweedy
> On Apr 14, 3:21 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>
>> except science works. it's why you have a computer
>>
>
> Yes, computers are the product of intelligent design.
Except for human brains....
>
>> mohammed didnt have one. creationism is worthless
>
> Neither did Darwin.
Darwin had the tool known as science.
> Evolution is Atheism ideology.
No, Ray, evolution is a scientific theory, and says nothing about God.
Claiming that if God is to exist, he has to leave physical evidence, is
atheist ideology
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>
> Evolution rejects ID----stupid.
Rejecting ID because it's stupid is a wise thing to do.
> Evolution says Intelligence and Design
> do not exist in nature.
Actually, it's the evidence that indicates that "design" is an appearance,
not a finding. As for "intelligence", evolutionary theory is compatable
with "intellignce" as long as the intelligent being is known to exist. The
idea that humans have bred animals for specific traits works well within
evolution.
>
> That's why this Usenet exists and that's why the ID v. Evolution
> debate exists----stupid.
There is no debate in science over "ID". Evolution is a well accepted
scientific theory. ID is a religious belief.
>
> Read: "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design" by
> Michael Shermer (2006) for a basic grasp.
Ray, when it comes to reading, you have to get beyond the title alone.
It's clear you've never read Shermer's book.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> I will admit that this is a usually a select group of posters. Even
>> though these are the only anti-science creationist posters posting at
>> this time they do not likely represent the majority of like minded
>> individuals out in general society. These are the only types left
>> once they find out how badly they have been lied to about this issue
>> and how worthless the anti-evolution arguments are. It has to take a
>> special person to be able to keep posting nonsense for months or
>> years.
>>
>
> Could we expect a Richard Dawkins ass kisser to say anything else
> about his enemies?
Ray, do you have any evidence that Ron kisses Dr. Dawkins? As for
expecting, can anyone expect that you will stop relying on ad hominem
fallacy?
> I see no insult in being rejected by a
> "Christian" (= Ron Okimoto) who agrees with arch-Atheist Richard
> Dawkins concerning the origin of living things, past and present.
It would seem that Ron disagrees with Dr. Dawkins about the existence of
God. Ray, on the other hand, agrees with Dawkins that if God isn't
visible, he doesn't exist.
>
> Not only is "Christian" Ron Okimoto self-evidently confused
Claiming "self evident" means you avoid having to show evidence for your
assertion. There's no evidence that Ron is confused.
and/or
> deluded-deceived, since Christians and Atheists do not agree on origin
> of living things,
Christians and atheists do agree on scientific matters. They disagree on
matters of belief.
> past and present, Ron Okimoto fails to point out
> that most of the persons that he has branded to be "anti-evolution"
> are in fact evolutionists who accept natural selection.
Actually, those persons Ron mentions are "Creationist" by any meaningful
definition of the term. If Ray chooses to claim that everyone who doesn't
agree with his very ideosyncratic belief are "evoltuionists" then his claims
that the majority of US citizens being "anti evolution" is obviously wrong.
Why does Ray keep painting targets on his shoes? Does he think it will
improve his target practice?
>
>> (M)adman: addledman the attention starved poster child of the anti-
>> science brigade just keeps getting worse if that is at all possible
>> at
>> this time. It is pretty easy to determine who the nitwit is if you
>> read a couple of adman's posts.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fcb0dfc0d3f2cb1f?hl=en
>>
>
> Madman argues forcefully for the main claim of Darwinism:
> microevolution.
The "main claim" of evolution is that populations change over time. This
includes both "microevolution" and "macro". Many creationists grudingly
accept microevoluiton but still reject evolution on larger scales.
> Again, Ron failed to tell the audience this all
> important fact.
Perhaps because it's not important. Ray fails to tell his "audience" that
he worships a deceased televangelist, and believes that superintelligent
Neanderthals from Atlantis ( the eels keep looking for it) built the "great
pyramid", and that UFOs are visiting Area 51. None of that is important
either. It's the quality (or in Ray's case lack of quality) that
determines the case.
>
> SNIP....
>
>>
>> Sean Pitman is posting and running
>> again.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d92e3a35416f3793?hl=en
>>
>
> Sean Pitman argues forcefully for the two main claims of Darwinism:
> microevolution and natural selection. One of his email addresses has
> the phrase "natural selection" in it.
Because both are too well established to deny.
>
>
>> Glenn is still
>> around.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fc5402e99dc445e5?hl=en
>>
>
> Glenn accepts the main claim of Darwinism: microevolution. He probably
> accepts natural selection too.
As does anyone who has even a passing aquaintance with reality.
>
>
>> Ray is still Ray and the only real [Creationist-IDist] TM posting on
>> TO.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ff389c111aeb2c7d?hl=en
>>
>
> Note: I deleted and corrected a lie by adding the bracket.
No, you just added another lie to your own silly claim.
>
> I reject microevolution and natural selection because no evidence
> exists supporting these science fiction concepts.
there is, of course plenty of evidence of microevolution. The fact that
populations vary is some of that evidence. Natural selection is a trival
fact of nature. Denying the existence of both just hurts your already
shaky credibility.
> Both concepts only
> exist in the imagination of Darwinists----that is the extent of their
> existence.
Yet they can be easily demonstrated by anyone. Why don't you address that
fact?
>
> FACT: Real Creationists-IDists do not support the **main claims** of
> their enemy (= Darwinism). Therefore I am the only real Creationist-
> IDist on this particular public forum.
Sorry, Ray, but making up things and calling them "FACT" means nothing.
You are the only "creationist" of your particular and peculiar type. That
doesn't make you the only creationist.
>
> Both Madman and Sean Pitman accept evolution and natural selection. As
> does Ken Ham and AiG, and Ron Okimoto, Richard Dawkins, Ken Miller,
> Michael Behe, John Harshman, Garamond Lethe, John Stockwell, Frank
> James, Dana Tweedy, Richard Clayton, Howard Hershey, etc.etc.
Which means they aren't totally insane, unlike yourself.
>
> The point is: the Fundies are in Darwin's camp. The Bible is SO true:
> by their fruits you will know them.
And Ray produces nothing but bitter, and angry "fruits".
> The peaceful harmony between
> religious Fundamentalists and Atheist lunatics, concerning the **main
> claims** of Darwinism, tells honest and objective persons that the
> Darwin camp is comprised with the worst of the worst (= Fundies and
> Atheists)
Ray, remember, you aren't either honest, or objective. Speaking for those
groups as if you were part of them is absurd.
>
> Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere
> Creationist-species immutabilist, Paleyan Designist, British Natural
> Theologian.
you forgot "all around nutbar".
DJT
Andre Lieven
For the excellent reason that ALL of the evidence supports evolution.
> stupid.
Yes, you are.
> Evolution says Intelligence and Design do not exist in nature.
And, that's exactly correct.
> That's why this Usenet exists
Are you now so insane that you believe that Usenet is a product of
NATURE ?
Wow.
> and that's why the ID v. Evolution debate exists----
There's no "debate". ID lost over 100 years ago.
> stupid.
Yes, you still are.
> Read: "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design" by
> Michael Shermer (2006) for a basic grasp.
Well, that's a good idea, because Shermer is exactly right.
A position that you are utterly incapable of ever experiencing.
Andre
raven1
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I reject microevolution and natural selection because no evidence
>exists supporting these science fiction concepts. Both concepts only
>exist in the imagination of Darwinists----that is the extent of their
>existence.
>
>FACT: Real Creationists-IDists do not support the **main claims** of
>their enemy (= Darwinism). Therefore I am the only real Creationist-
>IDist on this particular public forum.
Ray, based on that criteria, you may be the only "real Creationist" on
the planet. Can you cite anyone else who agrees with your position?
Kent Paul Dolan
the subject line of this thread, without leaning
forward to bring it into better focus, and it comes
out "fruit fly fossils".
FWIW
xanthian.
"Fruit fly fossil pie" -- yummy for lithovores.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
mentioned many times before.
Differential reproductive succes of varying organisms in the struggle
for life, is just as real as differential gravitational success of a
bunch of varying rocks rolling down the hill in the struggle for
depth.
Those are manufactured facts created by ourselves, for practical use,
they are not facts of nature. For natural selection to be a fact of
nature there must exist a relationship of comparison in nature between
organisms based on being slightly different. Now I can admit that its
possibly true that there exists a relationship between organisms in a
population, which might legitemelately be called a comparison. But
even if that were true, then still it couldnt be true that this
relationship exists on the basis of being slightly different. Nature
would compare organisms that are different as well as organisms that
are the same.
You can well see contextually that natural selection isnt real because
the numbers it produces are generally discarded. No Darwinist
remembers what the differential reproductive succes of the peppered
and white moths were, but many Newtonists certainly know the
gravitational force of the earth by heart to a high degree of
precision.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
roki...@cox.net
> It is about time for a post where the anti-science creationist posters
> are listed so that anyone on either side can see just what kind of
> basket cases are claiming to be on that side. If you go to Google
> groups you can click on their profiles and have access to their
> posts. There is nothing better to tell any thinking human being that
> the anti-evolution creationist faction is a suspect and basically a
> collection of the ignorant, incompetent and dishonest than reading
> what the supporters write.
>
> though these are the only anti-science creationist posters posting at
> this time they do not likely represent the majority of like minded
> individuals out in general society. These are the only types left
> once they find out how badly they have been lied to about this issue
> and how worthless the anti-evolution arguments are. It has to take a
> special person to be able to keep posting nonsense for months or
> years.
>
> science brigade just keeps getting worse if that is at all possible at
> this time. It is pretty easy to determine who the nitwit is if you
> read a couple of adman's posts.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fcb0dfc0d3f2cb1f?hl=en
>
> Bill254 and some others and is now professing drug problems. Enough
> said.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f7c01648d0a93cc5?hl=en
>
> Sean Pitman is posting and running again.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d92e3a35416f3793?hl=en
>
>
> Nando is still as lost as ever.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f51315e8173b5639?hl=en
>
> NashTon is still posting.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/853c58135a044b63?hl=en
>
> For some reason, Backspace came back.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/37a55dcda355addd?hl=en
>
> Should Damaeus be placed among the worthy?http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/896f087371bedff3?hl=en
>
> Pagano hasn't made an apperance lately or I'd have put him in. He has
> posted since the last update 3 or 4 months ago.
>
> If I have missed anyone? Add them to the list.
I missed a couple:
Gabriel:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d18caf72eb0dde9e?hl=en
Fossil Lin: Ed Conrad clone, sock puppet or acolyte.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b81215c198500e4c?hl=en
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ofcourse I agree with Ray, that natural selection is not real, as I
> mentioned many times before.
>
> Differential reproductive succes of varying organisms in the struggle
> for life, is just as real as differential gravitational success of a
> bunch of varying rocks rolling down the hill in the struggle for
> depth.
which, of course, is nonsense. rocks don't reproduce. i'm not sure
where nando learned his biology but he's badly misinformed.
>
> Those are manufactured facts created by ourselves, for practical use,
> they are not facts of nature. For natural selection to be a fact of
> nature there must exist a relationship of comparison in nature between
> organisms based on being slightly different. Now I can admit that its
> possibly true that there exists a relationship between organisms in a
> population, which might legitemelately be called a comparison. But
> even if that were true, then still it couldnt be true that this
> relationship exists on the basis of being slightly different. Nature
> would compare organisms that are different as well as organisms that
> are the same.
there are no 2 organisms the same.
>
> You can well see contextually that natural selection isnt real because
> the numbers it produces are generally discarded. No Darwinist
> remembers what the differential reproductive succes of the peppered
> and white moths were, but many Newtonists certainly know the
> gravitational force of the earth by heart to a high degree of
> precision.
someday nando will learn english. until he does, paragraphs like this
one he just wrote will remain forever enshrouded in his own
meaningless verbiage.
and it's funny that newton's law was deterministic...not 'free' at
all.
and it DEFINITELY wasn't creationist. creationism cant even tell us
how rocks fall of cliffs.
roki...@cox.net
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 5:37 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> snip
> >> I will admit that this is a usually a select group of posters. Even
> >> though these are the only anti-science creationist posters posting at
> >> this time they do not likely represent the majority of like minded
> >> individuals out in general society. These are the only types left
> >> once they find out how badly they have been lied to about this issue
> >> and how worthless the anti-evolution arguments are. It has to take a
> >> special person to be able to keep posting nonsense for months or
> >> years.
>
> > Could we expect a Richard Dawkins ass kisser to say anything else
> > about his enemies?
>
> Ray, do you have any evidence that Ron kisses Dr. Dawkins? As for
> expecting, can anyone expect that you will stop relying on ad hominem
> fallacy?
>
> > I see no insult in being rejected by a
> > "Christian" (= Ron Okimoto) who agrees with arch-Atheist Richard
> > Dawkins concerning the origin of living things, past and present.
>
> It would seem that Ron disagrees with Dr. Dawkins about the existence of
> God. Ray, on the other hand, agrees with Dawkins that if God isn't
> visible, he doesn't exist.
>
>
Just imagine a future where guys like Ray are the only true Christians
left standing. Anyone that wants to know more about what such a
future may be like, just read more of Ray's posts. It would be a
pretty lonely future with only one guy left to talk to himself. adman
isn't a real Christian like Ray, neither is Glenn or Spinny or,
well...there haven't been any other real Christians but Ray that post
on TO.
As I said in my original post in this thread the current group of anti-
science creationists are a select group. These are the only guys left
that are willing to contest the real science when they are constantly
confronted by how bogus their arguments are.
Ron Okimoto
Rolf
> That's why this Usenet exists and that's why the ID v. Evolution
> debate exists----stupid.
>
Right, it is stupid to believ in ID. But you can't help yourself, poor boy.
> Read: "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design" by
> Michael Shermer (2006) for a basic grasp.
>
Don't need to, know more than enough.
Whatever BS you present, I have a proper comment ready.
> Ray
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>On Apr 14, 4:54 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> Evolution is the observed fact that populations change over time. The
>> Theory of Evolution is the intelligently-designed explanation for that
>> observation.
No answer, Ray? Well, then let's proceed to your irrelevant
and inaccurate claim...
>Evolution rejects ID----stupid. Evolution says Intelligence and Design
>do not exist in nature.
Wrong again, Ray. Science says, correctly, that no evidence
of design has been observed in nature. But please feel free
to post the unambiguous criteria by which design could be
shown to exist. Oh, and note that "I don't see how it could
be done without design" is not evidence, other than of
ignorance on the part of the design claimant.
<snip Raydiocy>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
[M]adman
> On Apr 13, 2:06 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>> er...@swva.net wrote:
>>> On Apr 12, 12:28 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>>>> Ron O wrote:
>>>>> It is about time for a post where the anti-science creationist
>>>>> posters are listed so that anyone on either side can see just what
>>>>> kind of basket cases are claiming to be on that side. If you go to
>>>>> Google groups you can click on their profiles and have access to
>>>>> their posts. There is nothing better to tell any thinking human
>>>>> being that the anti-evolution creationist faction is a suspect and
>>>>> than reading what the supporters write.
>>
>>>>> I will admit that this is a usually a select group of posters.
>>>>> Even though these are the only anti-science creationist posters
>>>>> posting at this time they do not likely represent the majority of
>>>>> like minded individuals out in general society. These are the
>>>>> only types left once they find out how badly they have been lied
>>>>> to about this issue and how worthless the anti-evolution
>>>>> arguments are. It has to take a special person to be able to keep
>>>>> posting nonsense for months or years.
>>
>>
>>> Can't be bothered to learn anything, eh?
>>
>> THAT would be you two BoZo's-
>
> Hey, addled man where is that honest and valid anti-evolution argument
> that you should have found by now? You've have had hundreds blow up
> in your face, but you keep coming back and facing the "PAT" answers
> with more stupid and dishonest arguiment. Just one honest and valid
> creationist argument. Why can't you put one up? Do you know what it
> means to be lied to? Do you understand dishonest and incompetent
> arguments when you are exposed to them? If you don't, why can't you
> put up just one valid and honest creationist anti-evolution argument
> that you have been able to verify means what you think. If you think
> that they have all been honest and valid you could just put up anyone
> of them, but you never put up a single one as being honest and valid.
> Why is that? You don't seem to be as addled as you make out.
>
> Ron Okimoto
None of them have "blown up". As i said earlier. You do not want to learn or
understand
Bill254
> It is about time for a post where the anti-science creationist posters
> are listed so that anyone on either side can see just what kind of
> basket cases are claiming to be on that side.
Hmm, Illogical proposition's. Let me think.
1) "About time", implies your *impatience, ( a non logical stance).
2) "Anti-science-creationists". All in one sentence?
(surely a lawyer would cry ".Objection your honour, leading,
argumentative, illogical").
3) *Listing* of the creationists for *all* to see?
*You* imagine (somehow) that *listing*, *creationists* for all to
see somehow is a *proof* of your assertions.
Hmm.
Surely *truth* speaks for itself? Surely, you *don't* have to "round
up"
all the *evidence* that you *disagree* with, and display it naked for
all to see ?
Surely, anybody who does such a thing is no better than *nazi*.
4) I "claim to be on that side". If you want to start *throwing basket
cases*
I suggest you throw them at me.
5) Unlike your normal average gentle peace loving *creationist*,
I actually *bite back*.
Bill254
> Ron O wrote:
> > It is about time for a post where the anti-science creationist posters
> > are listed so that anyone on either side can see just what kind of
>
> - Show quoted text -
What are you Yawning for?
I wanted the top spot.
I will have to accept a humble second.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> It is about time for a post where the anti-science creationist posters
> are listed so that anyone on either side can see just what kind of
> basket cases are claiming to be on that side. If you go to Google
> groups you can click on their profiles and have access to their
> posts. There is nothing better to tell any thinking human being that
> the anti-evolution creationist faction is a suspect and basically a
> collection of the ignorant, incompetent and dishonest than reading
> what the supporters write.
>
> I will admit that this is a usually a select group of posters. Even
> though these are the only anti-science creationist posters posting at
> this time they do not likely represent the majority of like minded
> individuals out in general society. These are the only types left
> once they find out how badly they have been lied to about this issue
> and how worthless the anti-evolution arguments are. It has to take a
> special person to be able to keep posting nonsense for months or
> years.
>
> (M)adman: addledman the attention starved poster child of the anti-
> science brigade just keeps getting worse if that is at all possible at
> this time. It is pretty easy to determine who the nitwit is if you
> read a couple of adman's posts.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fcb0dfc0d3f2cb1f?hl=en
>
> Spintronic is degenerating badly. He is also posting under Bill and
> Bill254 and some others and is now professing drug problems. Enough
>
> Sean Pitman is posting and running again.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d92e3a35416f3793?hl=en
>
> Glenn is still around.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fc5402e99dc445e5?hl=en
>
> Ray is still Ray and the only real ChristianTM posting on TO.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ff389c111aeb2c7d?hl=en
>
> Nando is still as lost as ever.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f51315e8173b5639?hl=en
>
>
> For some reason, Backspace came back.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/37a55dcda355addd?hl=en
>
> Should Damaeus be placed among the worthy?http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/896f087371bedff3?hl=en
>
> Pagano hasn't made an apperance lately or I'd have put him in. He has
> posted since the last update 3 or 4 months ago.
>
> If I have missed anyone? Add them to the list.
Damaeus's brain doesn't work like other people. He's more of a stream
of consciousness kind of guy. He's not determined to be ignorant, but
he really can't do science. He's not hostile to science, he's just
busy trying to make sense of the world he sees. He mentions several
stays at mental hospitals. He is not a Creationist in the ordinary
sense, nor does he reject science for the sake of religion or ego. It
is simply orthogonal to how he thinks.
I'd say he's his own category.
Kermit
Garamond Lethe
> On Apr 12, 1:37 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> It is about time for a post where the anti-science creationist posters
>> are listed so that anyone on either side can see just what kind of
>> basket cases are claiming to be on that side.
>
>
>
> Hmm, Illogical proposition's. Let me think.
>
>
> 1) "About time", implies your *impatience, ( a non logical stance).
>
I know backspace, and you're no backspace.
<snip remainder>
Andre Lieven
> > http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d92e3a35416f3793?hl=en
>
> > Glenn is still around.
>
> > Ray is still Ray and the only real ChristianTM posting on TO.
> > http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ff389c111aeb2c7d?hl=en
>
> > http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f51315e8173b5639?hl=en
>
> > NashTon is still posting.
>
> > For some reason, Backspace came back.
> > http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/37a55dcda355addd?hl=en
>
> > Should Damaeus be placed among the worthy?
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/896f087371bedff3?hl=en
Yes.
> > Pagano hasn't made an apperance lately or I'd have put him in. He has
> > posted since the last update 3 or 4 months ago.
>
> > If I have missed anyone? Add them to the list.
>
> Damaeus's brain doesn't work like other people. He's more of a stream
> of
...un-...
> consciousness kind of guy. He's not determined to be ignorant, but
> he really can't do science. He's not hostile to science, he's just
> busy trying to make sense of the world he sees. He mentions several
> stays at mental hospitals. He is not a Creationist in the ordinary
> sense, nor does he reject science for the sake of religion or ego. It
> is simply orthogonal to how he thinks.
>
> I'd say he's his own category.
The old Monty Python category of "loony" covers it well enough.
Andre
Dana Tweedy
> On Apr 14, 9:31 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>> It would seem that Ron disagrees with Dr. Dawkins about the
>> existence of God. Ray, on the other hand, agrees with Dawkins that
>> if God isn't visible, he doesn't exist.
>>
>>
> SNIP:
>
> Just imagine a future where guys like Ray are the only true Christians
> left standing. Anyone that wants to know more about what such a
> future may be like, just read more of Ray's posts. It would be a
> pretty lonely future with only one guy left to talk to himself. adman
> isn't a real Christian like Ray, neither is Glenn or Spinny or,
> well...there haven't been any other real Christians but Ray that post
> on TO.
I've on several occasions pointed out to Ray that if he ever got the
totalitarian theocracy he envisions, he would most likely be one of the
first up against the wall, or sent to a re-education camp. He doesn't
seem to realize that dictators and fanatics don't like competition.
>
> As I said in my original post in this thread the current group of
> anti- science creationists are a select group. These are the only
> guys left that are willing to contest the real science when they are
> constantly confronted by how bogus their arguments are.
I've been amazed how much creationists both hate science, and are awed by it
at the same time. If they simply dismissed science as wrong, then they'd
have no reason to oppose it. They hate science because it doesn't tell
them what they want to hear, and they don't have enough faith to dismiss it
entirely.
DJT
roki...@cox.net
So just put one up. How difficult could that be when you have done it
hundreds of times before. Just put up the honest and valid anti-
science creationist argument. Tell us what you think that it means
and give us a reference so we can check it out. How hard is that?
For laughs you ought to put up the moon dust argument again.
Ron Okimoto
Ye Old One
Ye Old One
<spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Hmm,
Shut up Spincronic, adults are talking.
--
Bob.
Bill254
> On Apr 15, 7:10 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
> which, of course, is nonsense. rocks don't reproduce.
Yes they do.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<3e469151-8e82-48e3...@z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>):
Interesting. How do they do that?
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
wf3h
if you had any rocks you'd know they don't
such is creationism.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<e9e7f92a-a35e-4461...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
He's got rocks, in his head if nowhere else.
>
> such is creationism.
>
Of course.
raven1
>Ofcourse I agree with Ray, that natural selection is not real, as I
>mentioned many times before.
>
>Differential reproductive succes of varying organisms in the struggle
>for life, is just as real as differential gravitational success of a
>bunch of varying rocks rolling down the hill in the struggle for
>depth.
Even Ray isn't addled enough to suggest such a thing.
>Those are manufactured facts created by ourselves, for practical use,
>they are not facts of nature.
Feel free to explain the difference.
>For natural selection to be a fact of
>nature there must exist a relationship of comparison in nature between
>organisms based on being slightly different.
This is word salad. Please rephrase coherently.
>Now I can admit that its
>possibly true that there exists a relationship between organisms in a
>population, which might legitemelately be called a comparison. But
>even if that were true, then still it couldnt be true that this
>relationship exists on the basis of being slightly different. Nature
>would compare organisms that are different as well as organisms that
>are the same.
More word salad. Please rephrase coherently.
>You can well see contextually that natural selection isnt real because
>the numbers it produces are generally discarded.
WTF is that supposed to mean? I can at least understand what Ray and
[M]adman are trying to say, even though they're normally totally
wrong. You've verging on gibberish here.
>No Darwinist
>remembers what the differential reproductive succes of the peppered
>and white moths were, but many Newtonists certainly know the
>gravitational force of the earth by heart to a high degree of
>precision.
Again, WTF?
Bill254
If you had a brain cell. You'd know they do.
Crystals *grow* *snap* and *grow*.
> such is creationism.
Why thank you.
wf3h
> On Apr 16, 2:40 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 15, 9:25 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > which, of course, is nonsense. rocks don't reproduce.
>
> > > Yes they do.
>
> > if you had any rocks you'd know they don't
>
> If you had a brain cell. You'd know they do.
>
> Crystals *grow* *snap* and *grow*.
which, of course, is alot different than reproducing.
>
> > such is creationism.
>
> Why thank you.
it's amazing there are any creationists, with their lack of knowledge
about basic biology....
Ray Martinez
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ofcourse I agree with Ray, that natural selection is not real, as I
> mentioned many times before.
>
> Differential reproductive succes of varying organisms in the struggle
> for life, is just as real as differential gravitational success of a
> bunch of varying rocks rolling down the hill in the struggle for
> depth.
>
> they are not facts of nature.
I completely agree and I have said the same a little differently
before.
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
The mantra seen above simply says if you disagree and reject Darwinian
assumptions and interpretation of evidence then you are anti-science.
Of course Creationists and IDists disagree; we say the exact opposite
is true: if you accept Darwinian assumptions and interpretation of
evidence then you are anti-science. The exclusion of God is the
hallmark of anti-science, also known as Atheism ideology. The
inclusion of God is the hallmark of real science, also known as Theism
ideology.
Ray
Dr. Acula
Interesting. Could you show us an example of scientific investigation
that is inclusive of God? How does it work? How does this effect the
scientific method?
wf3h
The exclusion of God is the
> hallmark of anti-science, also known as Atheism ideology. The
> inclusion of God is the hallmark of real science, also known as Theism
> ideology.
ray has a problem: many scientists have been atheists. if believing in
god is required to do science, then how can atheists...such as
einstein, or steven weinberg, have done science?
a contradiction in ray's thinking....caused by creationism.
Bill254
> On Apr 16, 12:51 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 2:40 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> Apr 15, 9:25 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > which, of course, is nonsense. rocks don't reproduce.
>
> > > > Yes they do.
>
> > > if you had any rocks you'd know they don't
>
> > If you had a brain cell. You'd know they do.
>
> > Crystals *grow* *snap* and *grow*.
>
> which, of course, is alot different than reproducing.
No.
People *grow* *divide* *grow*.
No difference.
> > > such is creationism.
>
> > Why thank you.
>
> it's amazing there are any creationists, with their lack of knowledge
> about basic biology....
Perhaps you should try it.
Creationists are outgoing friendly people.
Not *poison dwarf/trolls* who hide away in basements *pretending* to
be clever.
I'd bet you may actually even get laid.
Of course you'd have to drop the torretts "CREATIONISTS SHIT IN WATER"
gag line.
People (IN THE REAL WORLD) may lock you up for that one.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
was not securely scientific because it was based around comparison.
The point is obviously most Darwinists are Philistines when it comes
to fundamental issues. They are ignorant about issues such as free
will and proud of being ignorant. So by your ignorance you all end up
promoting a science of good and evil one way or another. You take the
wrong position on free will, then thats the inevitable result. I feel
all your scientific objective standards of good and evil in the
background when you judge me and others. By what I feel of the way you
all judge I see no problem in the thesis that Darwinism promotes nazi
ideology.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Bill254
<spint...@hotmail.com>:
Cites?
roki...@cox.net
It isn't even that. Even if you believe in God you have to pass Ray's
other tests for being a true Christian and you can't do real science
unless you can do that.
Ron Okimoto
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Even the late Stephen Jay Gould exclaimed on tv that natural selection
> was not securely scientific because it was based around comparison.
>
> The point is obviously most Darwinists are Philistines when it comes
> to fundamental issues. They are ignorant about issues such as free
> will and proud of being ignorant.
let's look at what sharia creationism has brought to the swat valley
of pakistan...or to saudi arabia
nando's perfect government in pakistan MURDERED a young couple last
week because they eloped.
in afghanistan his islamist friends legalized rape
in saudi arabia they married an 8 year old to a 46 year old man
in iraq last week islamists killed 25 homosexuals
nando can't deal with reality. the reality is that creationis has
always led to murder. always to slavery. creationists know less about
freedom than a fish know about deserts.
he talks a good story. but it's all lies as the EVIDENCE proves.
So by your ignorance you all end up
> promoting a science of good and evil one way or another. You take the
> wrong position on free will, then thats the inevitable result. I feel
> all your scientific objective standards of good and evil in the
> background when you judge me and others. By what I feel of the way you
> all judge I see no problem in the thesis that Darwinism promotes nazi
> ideology.
>
nando's rigtht. he says anticipation theory is the only way to look at
thinks. and i anticipate that in a few years, it will be found that
creationism was actually a money making joke founded by the 7th day
adventists to fool idiots like nando.
wf3h
> On Apr 16, 6:14 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 12:51 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 16, 2:40 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > Apr 15, 9:25 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > which, of course, is nonsense. rocks don't reproduce.
>
> > > > > Yes they do.
>
> > > > if you had any rocks you'd know they don't
>
> > > If you had a brain cell. You'd know they do.
>
> > > Crystals *grow* *snap* and *grow*.
>
> > which, of course, is alot different than reproducing.
>
> No.
>
> People *grow* *divide* *grow*.
really? crystals have metabolism?
gee. no wonder creationism's so useless. creationists think rocks eat
by the way...how does a liquid crystal crack?
>
> No difference.
>
> > > > such is creationism.
>
> > > Why thank you.
>
> > it's amazing there are any creationists, with their lack of knowledge
> > about basic biology....
>
> Perhaps you should try it.
>
> Creationists are outgoing friendly people.
you're right. and all those people are actually the voices they hear
in their heads telling them that slaughtering a goat will cure
disease.
>
> Not *poison dwarf/trolls* who hide away in basements *pretending* to
> be clever.
>
> I'd bet you may actually even get laid.
ROFLMAO!!! jesus...sexual frustration leaks out of the creationist's
sorry existence!
>
> Of course you'd have to drop the torretts "CREATIONISTS SHIT IN WATER"
> gag line.
temporarily replaced by the fact creationists use goat sacrifice to
cure disease...>ANOTHER reason creationism is useless.
>
> People (IN THE REAL WORLD) may lock you up for that one.
can't help you sport. you guys were the ones saying disease is caused
by 'sin'.
and for 2000 years that killed people
arfie...@gmail.com
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Even the late Stephen Jay Gould exclaimed on tv that natural selection
> was not securely scientific because it was based around comparison.
Cite?
> The point is obviously most Darwinists are Philistines when it comes
> to fundamental issues.
Define "fundamental issues". The people you call "Darwinists" seem to
be interested in things other than your weird little takes of
theology,
pseudoscience and other quackery, and apparently this is such
a bad thing that you have to Godwin them over and over again as
if that actually proves anything.
So, no. Your fundamental issues aren't theirs. Tough.
> They are ignorant about issues such as free
> will and proud of being ignorant.
You still think that inanimate objects can "will" themselves to
defy gravity, right?
You can't be ignorant of something that's delusional nonsense.
> So by your ignorance you all end up
> promoting a science of good and evil one way or another.
Defined, of course, by a delusional crank.
I'm hardly quaking in my boots.
> You take the
> wrong position on free will, then thats the inevitable result.
Since your idea of free will continues to include such wonders
as bricks "choosing" to fall in a certain direction and planetoids
"choosing" to defy their orbits, there isn't much left that a sane
person couldn't get "wrong".
> I feel
> all your scientific objective standards of good and evil in the
> background when you judge me and others.
Oh, yeah. We're "judging" you even though you're claiming
that we're the Nazis here.
Congratulations on being supremely hypocritical in this.
> By what I feel of the way you
> all judge I see no problem in the thesis that Darwinism promotes nazi
> ideology.
Except that your attempts to prove it are singularly pathetic, of
course.
You could do something else a bit more constructive, you know, like
playing in traffic or actually bothering to *read* a biology
textbook,
but I suspect doing so might cause you to do something rash - like
stop posting to this newsgroup after you realize what an ignorant
little turd you've been all these years.
-Chris Krolczyk
Martin Hutton
Spinny may have a point there. If you've ever had a vegetable
garden in New England you would know that you'd have to clear
out the rocks. And the next year, expecting a rock free garden,
your spade would encounter more of the damn things...and you'd
swear they'd reproduced over the winter.
--
Martin
Ye Old One
<spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Apr 16, 2:40 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> On Apr 15, 9:25 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> > > which, of course, is nonsense. rocks don't reproduce.
>>
>> > Yes they do.
>>
>> if you had any rocks you'd know they don't
>
>
>
>If you had a brain cell. You'd know they do.
>
>Crystals *grow* *snap* and *grow*.
Crystals are not rocks you moron, nor do they reproduce.
>
>> such is creationism.
>
>Why thank you.
>
--
Bob.
Bill254
> On Apr 16, 5:03 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > which, of course, is nonsense. rocks don't reproduce.
>
> > > > > > Yes they do.
>
> > > > > if you had any rocks you'd know they don't
>
> > > > If you had a brain cell. You'd know they do.
>
> > > > Crystals *grow* *snap* and *grow*.
>
> > > which, of course, is alot different than reproducing.
>
> > No.
>
> > People *grow* *divide* *grow*.
>
> really? crystals have metabolism?
Before I answer, how many goalpost shifts are you allowed?
Does your allotment run out before we get to fingernails?
> gee. no wonder I am so useless. creationists think rocks grow
Yes & yes.
> by the way...how does a liquid crystal crack?
I don't use them drugs sorry. Wrong class.
Bill254
Listen you *DIMWIT*.
"Rocks" are aggregate of minerals.
Here are what we call *minerals*.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral
Rocks can form by "Crystallization".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igneous_rocks
Now shut the *FLUFF* up, and go back to bed.
You stupid decrepid *MORON*.
Rolf
> On Apr 15, 4:10 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Ofcourse I agree with Ray, that natural selection is not real, as I
>> mentioned many times before.
>>
>> Differential reproductive succes of varying organisms in the struggle
>> for life, is just as real as differential gravitational success of a
>> bunch of varying rocks rolling down the hill in the struggle for
>> depth.
>>
>> Those are manufactured facts created by [Darwin and Darwinists], for
>> practical use, they are not facts of nature.
>
> I completely agree and I have said the same a little differently
> before.
>
Two idiots believing the same nonsene. Makes it selfevident they are both
idiots.
Do you know what differential reproductive success means? How succesful are
you wrt reproduction? I've been reasonably succesful, two daughters, four
grandchildren.
When you admit that differential reproductive succes in an by itself is a
clearly stated and- at least in principle also a useful, viable principle
that may have indetifiable consequences (even if you believe it has no
effect, no evolutionary consequences and is irrelevant), we may be ready for
the next step.
Rolf
Are there any sciences where God is absent? Say like in physics, chemistry,
geology, et cetera?
When we have sorted that out we may be ready for the next step.
> Ray
wf3h
> On Apr 17, 12:52 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 5:03 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > which, of course, is nonsense. rocks don't reproduce.
>
> > > > > > > Yes they do.
>
> > > > > > if you had any rocks you'd know they don't
>
> > > > > If you had a brain cell. You'd know they do.
>
> > > > > Crystals *grow* *snap* and *grow*.
>
> > > > which, of course, is alot different than reproducing.
>
> > > No.
>
> > > People *grow* *divide* *grow*.
>
> > really? crystals have metabolism?
>
> Before I answer, how many goalpost shifts are you allowed?
you made an assertion: rocks grow.
i said prove it. you didn't. that's hardly goalpost shifting.
>
> Does your allotment run out before we get to fingernails?
>
> > gee. no wonder I am so useless. creationists think rocks grow
>
> Yes & yes.
>
> > by the way...how does a liquid crystal crack?
>
> I don't use them drugs sorry. Wrong class.-
i have a wristwatch with a liquid crystal display. you said crystals
crack and grow.
no, they don't. and this merely proves again how useless creationism
is.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<639b8467-7e16-4246...@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
> On Apr 17, 9:26 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:51:56 -0700 (PDT), Bill254
>> <spintro...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>>> which, of course, is nonsense. rocks don't reproduce.
>>
>>>>> Yes they do.
>>
>>>> if you had any rocks you'd know they don't
>>
>>> If you had a brain cell. You'd know they do.
>>
>>> Crystals *grow* *snap* and *grow*.
>>
>> Crystals are not rocks you moron, nor do they reproduce.
>
> Listen you *DIMWIT*.
>
> "Rocks" are aggregate of minerals.
>
> Here are what we call *minerals*.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral
>
> Rocks can form by "Crystallization".
Please note the qualifier 'can'.
Crystals are not rocks; some, and only some, rocks are crystalline.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igneous_rocks
>
>
> Now shut the *FLUFF* up, and go back to bed.
>
> You stupid decrepid *MORON*.
>
Don't be so hard on yourself.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <op.usiatl0kil7zud@sam_vimes>):
Rocks in your garden in New England are God's way of telling you to move to
Kansas. There are famously no rocks in Kansas, except in the skulls of the
school board...
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <ujdfu4pqhd0g2f1lg...@4ax.com>):
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:25:37 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Bill254
> <spint...@hotmail.com>:
>
>> On Apr 15, 12:21 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>> On Apr 15, 7:10 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>>
>>
>>
>>> which, of course, is nonsense. rocks don't reproduce.
>>
>> Yes they do.
>
> Cites?
>
I asked him about that, too. Two days ago. He has yet to reply. Gee. I wonder
why.
Tim Norfolk
Look up Brownian ratchets. It's a cool bit of applied physics.
Bill254
> On Apr 17, 5:29 am, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > which, of course, is nonsense. rocks don't reproduce.
>
> > > > > > > > Yes they do.
>
> > > > > > > if you had any rocks you'd know they don't
>
> > > > > > If you had a brain cell. You'd know they do.
>
> > > > > > Crystals *grow* *snap* and *grow*.
>
> > > > > which, of course, is alot different than reproducing.
>
> > > > No.
>
> > > > People *grow* *divide* *grow*.
>
> > > really? crystals have metabolism?
>
> > Before I answer, how many goalpost shifts are you allowed?
>
> you made an assertion: rocks grow.
>
> i said prove it. you didn't. that's hardly goalpost shifting.
Your such a *retard* you don't even realise you are trying to
discredit "clay theory".
You should look it up.
And then come back and discredit it some more.
I don't mind.
Bill254
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:52:02 -0400, Bob Casanova wrote
> >>> which, of course, is nonsense. rocks don't reproduce.
>
> >> Yes they do.
>
> > Cites?
>
> I asked him about that, too. Two days ago. He has yet to reply. Gee. I wonder
> why.
Because your too *STUPID* to understand.
QUOTE "All the types of siliceous rocks reproduce".END
http://europa.sim.ucm.es/compludoc/AA?articuloId=448806&donde=castellano&zfr=0
wf3h
you should look up 'generalization' to find out why this particular
analysis makes no sense
AND why creationism is SSOOO useless. in fact, you haven't pointed out
a single success of creationism in ANY science. i'm willing to be
magnanimous and let YOU pick the science
-physics
-chemistry
-geology
-astronomy
and tell us WHERE supernaturalism has been observed and tested.
so far you haven't said a word. not one.
which is why creationism is useless.
Bill254
> On Apr 17, 12:51 pm, Bill254 <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > which, of course, is nonsense. rocks don't reproduce.
> > > > > > > > > > Yes they do.
> > > > > > > > > if you had any rocks you'd know they don't
> > > > > > > > If you had a brain cell. You'd know they do.
> > > > > > > > Crystals *grow* *snap* and *grow*.
> > > > > > > which, of course, is alot different than reproducing.
> > > > > > No.
> > > > > > People *grow* *divide* *grow*.
> > > > > really? crystals have metabolism?
> > > > Before I answer, how many goalpost shifts are you allowed?
> > > you made an assertion: rocks grow.
> > > i said prove it. you didn't. that's hardly goalpost shifting.
> > Your such a *retard* you don't even realise you are trying to
> > discredit "clay theory".
> > You should look it up.
> > And then come back and discredit it some more.
> you should look up 'generalization' to find out why this particular
> analysis makes no sense
You should stay on topic when your *ass* is getting kicked.
> AND why creationism is SSOOO useless. in fact, you haven't pointed out
> a single success of creationism in ANY science.
Why should I.
Spirituality is as much to do with quantum mechanics as A.G.I
algorithms have to do with feelings.
> i'm willing to be magnanimous and let YOU pick the science
Why not be braver and stay on topic?
> -physics
> -chemistry
> -geology
> -astronomy
>
> and tell us WHERE supernaturalism has been observed and tested.
I'll choose physics and let you show me WHERE (you screamed first)
"extra dimensions" have been *observed & tested*.
> so far you haven't said a word. not one.
I'll wait for your *proof* of the 9th dimension.
> which is why creationism is useless.
By your logic so is physics, yet "string theory" needs all 11.