What's left?
chris thompson
deniers but to jeer at them.
Sure, every now and then, there's someone who posts an interesting
question. For the most part though, the creationists are doing stupid
cut-and-pastes.
Join me in jeering them.
Chris
Boikat
I jeer at them on a regular basis. The only creationist with an
original thought in his head, strange as *that* is, is nando. It's
the same thought that's been buzzing around in his head for years, but
at least it's original (darwinism destroys freedom). Even though it's
BS, it's always fun to watch him spin in three directions at the same
time.
All the other anti-evolutionists are poses or pretenders.
Boikat
rmacfarl
"chris thompson" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4760f4e8-589d-404d...@g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
If it's all the same to you, I'll join Wilkins & continue to
killfile them (and the evo-promoting nutbags too, for that
matter), so I can stick to the sometimes enlightening, sometimes
entertaining, sometimes both, collective that remains (which is
still a big pool to dip into...)
aganunitsi
>�The only creationist with an
> original thought in his head, strange as *that* is, is nando. �It's
> the same thought that's been buzzing around in his head for years, but
> at least it's original (darwinism destroys freedom). �Even though it's
> BS, it's always fun to watch him spin in three directions at the same
> time.
Marla's Law: A detailed and supported yet spurious and illogical
argument makes sense if you forget that it's retarded.
Ron O
Was Marla one of adman's nyms?
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
> "chris thompson" <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
It is low grade ore, but most of the discussion worth anything is
usually stimiulated by something stupid that one of the anti-evolution
faction comes up with. Take adman as an example. He and the
responses to his posts likely accounted for over 30% of the TO posts
when he was posting regularly. Most of it was worthless, like I said
it is low grade ore. Without adman threads what has happened to the
posting volume? What other nit wit is willing to put up as many long
refuted arguments as adman? Gerard and Kalkidas try, but they do not
post enough to make much of an impact. Ray has pretty much given up
and Nando and Backspace are one trick ponies.
It is a good thing Jason came back and started posting stupid things
the anti-evolution faction is doing in the form of news articles or TO
would be pretty much dead.
Ron Okimoto
T Pagano
Really? The over confidence and the short memory is, if nothing else,
amusing. Wasn't it Thompson who hitched his wagon to Dr Theobald's
nonsense about vestigial organs? I think the ridiculous nonsense
about vestigial organs being evidence for evolution still appears in
the Dr's "29 evidences of evolution" at the Talk.Origin archive. Out
of sheer embarrassment someone should have taken that down by now. In
any event that affair ended badly for the good Dr and Thompson didn't
stand much better. Memory starting to return...?
And I'm still waiting for observational evidence that biological
novelty arises let alone that it progresses coherently towards
maturity as is dogmatically claimed. In a recent thread concerning
this issue, no one provided any scientific reports----NOT ONE. Memory
starting to return yet....?
The best evidence that the vanquished Elsberry (he was crushed in
2001) could produce were reports that the foram shell progressed from
less spherical to more spherical over the course of 15 million years.
That both forms existed together for millions of years seemed
consistent evidence of stasis not the emergence of novelty or its
progressive development.
When I pointed out (more recently) to the vanquished Elsberry (after
Harshman ran crying to him for help) that a good dog breeder could
produce more change in 20 years AND that those changes were no more
evidence of the emergence of novelty and its progression to maturity
than was he foram evidence he went spastic...and vanished. ....surely
Thompson's memory has been jogged by now?
Now I don't know what all this means....but it don't sound too good
for Thompson's side. I suggest he reassess the situation.
Regards,
T Pagano
D9000
Ymir
T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:
>
> I think the ridiculous nonsense
> about vestigial organs being evidence for evolution still appears in
> the Dr's "29 evidences of evolution" at the Talk.Origin archive.
This is odd. I had always though that the use of the word 'evidence' as
a count noun rather than a mass noun was restricted to creationists but
this FAQ actually does exist.
Is the use of 'evidences' (as opposed to 'pieces of evidence') becoming
an accepted term? Is this some new-fangled thing I can wax pedantic over
in my old age?
Curmudgeonly,
Andre
Kalkidas
news:apagano-q862p55459a4h...@4ax.com...
It's funny that he pretends "jeering" is some kind of new solution of last
resort. But jeering has been the stock-in-trade of Darwinists on t.o. since
its beginning.
bpuharic
>"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
>news:apagano-q862p55459a4h...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 15:52:22 -0800 (PST), chris thompson
>
>>
>> Now I don't know what all this means....but it don't sound too good
>> for Thompson's side. I suggest he reassess the situation.
>
>It's funny that he pretends "jeering" is some kind of new solution of last
>resort. But jeering has been the stock-in-trade of Darwinists on t.o. since
>its beginning.
>
the delcious irony of watching creationists tell each other that their
view of reality is true, when it[s all based on demons angels, etc...
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>And I'm still waiting for observational evidence that biological
>novelty arises let alone that it progresses coherently towards
>maturity as is dogmatically claimed. In a recent thread concerning
>this issue, no one provided any scientific reports----NOT ONE. Memory
>starting to return yet....?
what the hell is wrong with creationists and their language skills? we
have backspace who says he doesnt understand language at all, we have
gerard with his tripe about 'complexity' and now pagano with his
meaningless crap about 'progress towards maturity' as if these words
mean something
you guys really need a translator. it's obvious you theological hatred
of science has so corrupted your language skills you can neither speak
nor understand, english.
Kermit
> In article <apagano-q862p55459a4hp249ec4eq01285esfr...@4ax.com>,
> �T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I think the ridiculous nonsense
> > about vestigial organs being evidence for evolution still appears in
> > the Dr's "29 evidences of evolution" at the Talk.Origin archive.
>
> This is odd. I had always though that the use of the word 'evidence' as
> a count noun rather than a mass noun was restricted to creationists but
> this FAQ actually does exist.
>
> Is the use of 'evidences' (as opposed to 'pieces of evidence') becoming
> an accepted term? Is this some new-fangled thing I can wax pedantic over
> in my old age?
Think of this usage as multiple collective nouns, as in:
"All the fishes of the world" (meaning all the different kinds of
fish).
"All the peoples of the world" (meaning not all the individuals
together, but all the different tribes or nations together).
Or compare:
"How much wine did you drink?"
"How many wines does this store offer?"
One piece of evidence might be something like a fossil.
One category of evidence would be transitional fossils.
>
> Curmudgeonly,
>
> Andre
Kermit
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"Ymir" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:invalid-5C93DE.09090705032010@shawnews...
> In article <apagano-q862p55459a4h...@4ax.com>,
> T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:
>>
>> I think the ridiculous nonsense
>> about vestigial organs being evidence for evolution still appears in
>> the Dr's "29 evidences of evolution" at the Talk.Origin archive.
"Ridiculous nonsense" is a coverall label for every thing Pagano has ever
posted, over the years.
Pagano, starting out any statement with, "I think" is ridiculous nonsense.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
turning out one way or another, all Darwinists become nutcases.
Devil's Advocaat, Desertphile, Will in New Haven, bphuraic, they all
go irate and bizarre about it. I suggest to keep pressing this 1
button.
It can turn out one way, or the other, so there is absolutely nothing
forcing the result which one it will be. This drives Darwinists nuts.
chris thompson
> "T Pagano" <not.va...@address.net> wrote in message
You're correct that there's always been jeering. It's almost
impossible to resist the temptation, given the claptrap the average
creationist posts. But read what I wrote, please. It's gotten to the
point where there's no use in doing anything else. Creationism has
always been tripe, but the quality of tripe has degenerated to such a
degree that one cannot help but snicker.
Chris
Nashton
I've come to that conclusion about evo-cheerleaders also, but I'm way
ahead of you.
I started from day 1.
Take your useless theory and shove it, as far as I'm concerned. Most
people don't buy the "science" in it anyway, just as that don't believe
in the science (flawed computer models) of climate change, aka AGW.
Gimme a nudge when anything useful comes out of Darwin's atheist wet
dream, will ya'?
chris thompson
> In article <apagano-q862p55459a4hp249ec4eq01285esfr...@4ax.com>,
I think it's actually somewhat of an archaic form.
Chris
Gary Bohn
He has become a whirling dervish. God for him.
aganunitsi
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 15:52:22 -0800 (PST), chris thompson
>
OK, reassessing... calculating... calculating... ding!
Yep, just like I figured. For every ounce of bullshit found in
evolution, you will find exactly 3.4 ounces of bullshit in
creationism. Creationism takes the bullshit prize - lets have a parade!
Gary Bohn
Every culture has had its jesters, ours are just dumber.
john wilkins
Burkhard
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 15:52:22 -0800 (PST), chris thompson
> <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have come to the conclusion that there's nothing left to do with evo-
>> deniers but to jeer at them.
>>
>> Sure, every now and then, there's someone who posts an interesting
>> question. For the most part though, the creationists are doing stupid
>> cut-and-pastes.
>>
>> Join me in jeering them.
>>
>> Chris
>
> Really? The over confidence and the short memory is, if nothing else,
> amusing. Wasn't it Thompson who hitched his wagon to Dr Theobald's
> nonsense about vestigial organs? I think the ridiculous nonsense
> about vestigial organs being evidence for evolution still appears in
> the Dr's "29 evidences of evolution" at the Talk.Origin archive. Out
> of sheer embarrassment someone should have taken that down by now. In
> any event that affair ended badly for the good Dr and Thompson didn't
> stand much better. Memory starting to return...?
>
> And I'm still waiting for observational evidence that biological
> novelty arises let alone that it progresses coherently towards
> maturity as is dogmatically claimed. In a recent thread concerning
> this issue, no one provided any scientific reports----NOT ONE.
Probably because the idea that things "progresses coherently towards
maturity" is a relgious claim, not a scientific one.
Burkhard
Verily, I say upon you, it's the Russell effect at work, for is it not
written: "I do not think that evils can be cured by blind hatred of
their perpetrators. This will only lead us to become like them."
Kermit
> "T Pagano" <not.va...@address.net> wrote in message
Yes. After multiple measured, polite, and informative responses to the
same mistaken or dishonest claim by one person, some folks take a
leave of absence, while others stop pretending there is a dialog and
express annoyance in one way or another.
You don't think Tony's post is a wee bit disparaging? Let's see:
...over confidence
...amusing
...nonsense
...ridiculous nonsense
... sheer embarrassment
...ended badly
...dogmatically
...no one provided any scientific reports
...vanquished Elsberry
...crushed
...vanquished
...Harshman ran crying
...went spastic
No actual evidence, however.
Kermit
William Morse
> I have come to the conclusion that there's nothing left to do with evo-
> deniers but to jeer at them.
The problem is that there are two kinds of evo-deniers: the flat
earthers, who refuse to accept evolution no matter what, the earnest
religious believers, who have been erroneously persuaded that evolution
is somehow more incompatible with religion than electronics, and the
uninformed skeptics who know that doubts have been raised and don't know
enough to understand that the doubts are bogus. _Three_ kinds of
evo-deniers :-) But seriously, there are newbies on this group, and they
often get treated rather roughly. I say ignore the flat earthers, and
try to educate the others.
BTW thanks for sending the jacket, and more especially for spending the
time to figure out who left it.
Bill
gregwrld
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 15:52:22 -0800 (PST), chris thompson
>
Your delusions are complete, anyway. If anybody
was vanquished it was you when you ran away -
as you always do and will always do. You will run
away when asked to define biological novelty, you
will run away when asked for a better explanation
of the fossil record. You will run away when asked
how ID actually works. You will run away when asked
to calculate the specified complexity of any biological
feature.
Brave Sir Tony! Now run along...
gregwrld
JohnN
>
And just when the circus needed clowns, in walks...
JohnN
John Harshman
> When I pointed out (more recently) to the vanquished Elsberry (after
> Harshman ran crying to him for help)
Tony, I know you don't even read responses any more, being lost in your
own little world. But what was that parenthetical note about?
gregwrld
> "T Pagano" <not.va...@address.net> wrote in message
You and Pagano earn every bit of jeering
you get.
gregwrld
chris thompson
>
Hi Tony,
How's those cheek teeth, bud?
Chris
chris thompson
>
Hi Tony!
How're those cheek teeth doing, buddy?
Chris
Ron O
Hey Pags, what happened to all that intelligent design science that
you claimed was out there? Why did the ID perps have to run a bait
and switch scam on rubes like you? Why does the switch scam not even
mention that ID ever existed?
What a loser. What possible good could come out of your delusions
above?
If you have a viable argument where is it? You keep running from
putting up the honest and valid anti-evolution argument that you
should have, so why not just put one forward instead of vaccuous
pontifications?
Ron Okimoto
bpuharic
>On 3/4/10 7:52 PM, chris thompson wrote:
>> I have come to the conclusion that there's nothing left to do with evo-
>> deniers but to jeer at them.
>>
>> Sure, every now and then, there's someone who posts an interesting
>> question. For the most part though, the creationists are doing stupid
>> cut-and-pastes.
>>
>> Join me in jeering them.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
>I've come to that conclusion about evo-cheerleaders also, but I'm way
>ahead of you.
idiiot. if i were an 'evo cheerleader' i'd wear a short skirt...so how
do you answer THAT mr 'god did it'??' huh? huh?
>
>I started from day 1.
>
>Take your useless theory and shove it, as far as I'm concerned
no one except religious fanatics say it's useless. of course they say
that about ALL science...
.. Most
>people don't buy the "science" in it anyway, just as that don't believe
>in the science (flawed computer models) of climate change, aka AGW.
what does climate change have to do with evolution? you can always
rely on a creationist to tie non related concepts into a web of
paranoia.
>
>Gimme a nudge when anything useful comes out of Darwin's atheist wet
>dream, will ya'
it's your view it's atheim
a billion christians disagree.
Walter Bushell
wrote:
There is clear evidence from evolution in the dietary domain. Homer Sap,
is evidently not supposed to eat grains. And there wasn't a lot of fruit
on the Serengeti plain, either. Hint, eating carbohydrates requires
Vitamin C for processing.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
JTEM
gregwrld <GCzeba...@msn.com> wrote:
> You and Pagano earn every bit of jeering
> you get.
I'm not sure if that's quite the "killer argument" against
creationism that you appear to believe. Though I do
applaud your for spilling it on to a second line, even if
it is one sentence (Those lame one-line-wonders are
*Such* a cliche).
I guess that, for you, that qualifies as masterful.
chris thompson
Once again, you bring a rock to a gunfight.
This was not a discussion about evidence. It was a discussion about
personality types.
You lose- but you won't ever see that you lost.
Chris
JTEM
chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Once again, you bring a rock to a gunfight.
Once again, you mock yourself.
Seriously, dude, it honestly never occurred to you that
portraying yourself as an some egomaniac with
delusions of genius?
....or that appearances aren't always deceiving.
> This was not a discussion about evidence.
Oh, boy...
> It was a discussion about personality types.
I'd ask you what you believe "personality types" has to
do with evolution-v-creationism, but the answer couldn't
be good.
Let's just walk away from THAT train wreck, shall we?
> You lose- but you won't ever see that you lost.
We can't all be as insightful as you, Jethro.
And, speaking of personality disorders, let's see the
post that started this thread, the one you typed when
you weren't too busy curing cancer...
: I have come to the conclusion that there's nothing left to do with
evo-
: deniers but to jeer at them.
:
: Sure, every now and then, there's someone who posts an interesting
: question. For the most part though, the creationists are doing
stupid
: cut-and-pastes.
:
: Join me in jeering them.
Yup, there's a definitely superiority complex there, coming from
someone who was never capable of arguing his way out of a paper
bag...
johnetho...@yahoo.com
> chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Yup, there's a definitely superiority complex there, coming from
> someone who was never capable of arguing his way out of a paper
> bag...
Are you looking in a mirror? You've written a very accurate
description of yourself.
chris thompson
His problem is that he always argues with voices no one else can hear,
instead of the people who are actually there.
Chris
JTEM
"johnethompson2...@yahoo.com" <johnethompson2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Are you looking in a mirror?
You'll have to explain this one. Where do I say something
similar to this:
: I have come to the conclusion that there's nothing left to
: do with evo-deniers but to jeer at them.
:
: Sure, every now and then, there's someone who posts an
: interesting question. For the most part though, the
: creationists are doing stupid cut-and-pastes.
:
: Join me in jeering them.
Thanks in advance... for nothing...
JTEM
chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> His problem is
you're like the energizer Bunny of retards.
gregwrld
You know what I believe? Then I'll bet
you know I think you enjoy being an
asshole for its own sake. Nothing wrong
with that but it's hardly a challenge, either.
gregwrld
Kermit
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:11:38 -0500, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >And I'm still waiting for observational evidence that biological
> >novelty arises let alone that it progresses coherently towards
> >maturity as is dogmatically claimed. In a recent thread concerning
> >this issue, no one provided any scientific reports----NOT ONE. Memory
> >starting to return yet....?
>
> have backspace who says he doesnt understand language at all, we have
> gerard with his tripe about 'complexity' and now pagano with his
> meaningless crap about 'progress towards maturity' as if these words
> mean something
>
> you guys really need a translator. it's obvious you theological hatred
> of science has so corrupted your language skills you can neither speak
> nor understand, english.
Since they don't understand science, they assume that the essential
nature of science in incomprehensibility. If they are dense, turgid,
obscure, or use words nobody understand, then they can sound
scientific, yes? They never seem to grasp that the content of the
argument, and especially its fit to reality, matters.
Like children playing house, they mimic the form.
Compare:
"The bible (Koran, Vedas) says so..."
"Um... that's not evidence."
And:
"Here are a series of transitional fossils; just follow the links..."
"That's not evidence!"
They really don't grasp that these are profoundly different
categories. Like trying to *not imagine a white elephant, they know at
some deep level that understanding what we are saying will require
considering their own beliefs, it necessitates questioning their
epistemology. Many theists have no trouble with this, but they are not
the anti-science activists.
Kermit
JTEM
gregwrld <GCzeba...@msn.com> wrote:
> You know what I believe?
Who cares?
Like my world will come to an end if I don't read
another stupid opinion...
gregwrld
You mean like your own pet theories?
gregwrld
chris thompson
Does JTEM have 'pet' theories? Pets are usually nice, affectionate
things that give people pleasure. Alternatively, they can be something
like snakes, which might not be cuddly but are beautiful and sometimes
impressively powerful. JTEM's theories seem more like some strains of
human papillomavirus- not cuddly, not strong enough to kill anything,
but decidedly unpleasant.
Chris
JTEM
gregwrld <GCzeba...@msn.com> wrote:
> You mean
Hey, if you have to ask....
Say, maybe at least that "thompson" shit head
will buzz in here. Then you can claim that your
stupidity isn't stupidity, because it's just as
"smart" as someone elses bile!
JTEM
chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does
Well that didn't take long. I guess you earned a break
from convincing legions of fundamentalist Christians
that they were wrong, and that science is right.
You have convinced legions, no?
Anyhow, you go right ahead and set yourself to preaching
to the choir. You're good at that, and you seem to think
that it's a gift bestowed on none but the chosen few.
(Don't worry, I won't burst your bubble)
chris thompson
You really, really need to get away from your computer for a while.
Chris
Mitchell Coffey
Also, human papillomaviruses are transmitted by pricks.
Mitchell
John Wilkins
<382469ed-a24b-4a23...@f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Mitchell Coffey <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
and jocks...
Michael Siemon
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Well, JTEM is certainly a prick, but I don't recall any evidence
(here or elsewhere, where he is equally revered by his readers) that
he is now, or ever has been, a jock...
John Wilkins
<mlsiemon-6AA042...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
Well, I meant in shared showers. Read that how you like.
JTEM
chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You
Well, hey, to not see recognize your jean-yes...
Come on, give us all a laugh: Re-post your most bestest
argument, like, *Ever*! You know, the one that's the most
likely to convince a creationist.
You don't dare, do you?
Go on. I challenge you. Stop being such a pussy and do
it.
Kermit
Using "pussy" as synonymous with coward must endear you to all the
strong women you know.
Given that usage, would his responding to an internet *dare establish
his courage?
Posts by Chris have always been reasonable and informed - not that he
needs my reassurance.
Kermit
JTEM
Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Using "pussy" as synonymous with coward must
> endear you to all the strong women you know.
Why not? They see it as no different than using
"dick" -- as in "You're a dick" -- as a derogatory
term. (It is a penis reference, not a mention of
Dick York)
Is there any reason why anyone should see things
otherwise?
jillery
And so emphasizes the problem by contrast, yes?
Free Lunch
in talk.origins:
You would have to be able to be convinced. That would require you to be
able to thing and understand.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
"think and understand" of course.
Christopher Denney
I think it's mainly be cause they don't see two different statements.
"The bible (Koran, Vedas) says so..."
and
"Here are a series of transitional fossils; just follow the
links..."
both get translated, by the lazy, as:
"My book says:"
and they pick their book, over other books, every time.
gregwrld
From Webster:
bilious 2: of a peevish ill-natured disposition
You know bile, alright...
gregwrld
gregwrld
JTEM
Mitchell Coffey
> Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Using "pussy" as synonymous with coward must
> > endear you to all the strong women you know.
>
> Why not? They see it as no different than using
> "dick" -- as in "You're a dick" -- as a derogatory
> term. (It is a penis reference, not a mention of
> Dick York)
I stand corrected. I'd always seen it as a reference to Dick Sargent.
Mitchell Coffey
Kermit
Women as the target of contempt or anger usually aren't called
"dicks".
But if you really want to insult a guy, you use a derogative female
term.
Some men will even take pride in being called bastard, prick, etc.
But my real point was: what is the worth of shows of machismo over the
internet?
Kermit
chris thompson
Well, it seems to make _him_ feel better. If that's what he needs to
validate himself, it's no skin off my back.
Chris
Mitchell Coffey
> In article <140320101209119228%j...@wilkins.id.au>,
> John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <382469ed-a24b-4a23-bf6e-2c7280a1a...@f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> > Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 13, 2:38 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mar 13, 2:27 pm, gregwrld <GCzeba...@msn.com> wrote:
> ...
> > > > > You mean like your own pet theories?
>
> > > > > gregwrld
>
> > > > Does JTEM have 'pet' theories? Pets are usually nice, affectionate
> > > > things that give people pleasure. Alternatively, they can be something
> > > > like snakes, which might not be cuddly but are beautiful and sometimes
> > > > impressively powerful. JTEM's theories seem more like some strains of
> > > > human papillomavirus- not cuddly, not strong enough to kill anything,
> > > > but decidedly unpleasant.
>
> > > > Chris
>
> > > Also, human papillomaviruses are transmitted by pricks.
>
> > and jocks...
>
> Well, JTEM is certainly a prick, but I don't recall any evidence
> (here or elsewhere, where he is equally revered by his readers) that
> he is now, or ever has been, a jock...
As far as I'm willing to research the matter, JTEM's critique of
Chris' disputational methodology is directed on Chris' speculation
that perhaps creationist/IDers might be most properly handled through
"jeering" rather than strict debate. This is wrong, JTEM avers, and
in so many words calls on Chris to conform to the principles of
civility.
Mitchell
Kermit
> In article <hn03c9$rh...@speranza.aioe.org>, Nashton <n...@na.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 3/4/10 7:52 PM, chris thompson wrote:
> > > I have come to the conclusion that there's nothing left to do with evo-
> > > deniers but to jeer at them.
>
> > > Sure, every now and then, there's someone who posts an interesting
> > > question. For the most part though, the creationists are doing stupid
> > > cut-and-pastes.
>
> > > Join me in jeering them.
>
> > > Chris
>
> > I've come to that conclusion about evo-cheerleaders also, but I'm way
> > ahead of you.
>
> > I started from day 1.
>
> > Take your useless theory and shove it, as far as I'm concerned. Most
> > people don't buy the "science" in it anyway, just as that don't believe
> > in the science (flawed computer models) of climate change, aka AGW.
>
> > Gimme a nudge when anything useful comes out of Darwin's atheist wet
> > dream, will ya'?
>
> There is clear evidence from evolution in the dietary domain. Homer Sap,
> is evidently not supposed to eat grains. And there wasn't a lot of fruit
> on the Serengeti plain, either. Hint, eating carbohydrates requires
> Vitamin C for processing.
>
Really? That would explain a few things... Do you have a cite or link?
Yeah, we are adapted to eat veggies, cooked and raw, lean meat, cooked
and raw, and occasional fruit. No grains, no milk. Lots of exercise,
and lots of leisure time.
> --
> A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Kermit
Kermit
> On 3/4/10 7:52 PM, chris thompson wrote:
>
> > I have come to the conclusion that there's nothing left to do with evo-
> > deniers but to jeer at them.
>
> > Sure, every now and then, there's someone who posts an interesting
> > question. For the most part though, the creationists are doing stupid
> > cut-and-pastes.
>
> > Join me in jeering them.
>
> > Chris
>
> I've come to that conclusion about evo-cheerleaders also, but I'm way
> ahead of you.
>
> I started from day 1.
>
> Take your useless theory and shove it, as far as I'm concerned. Most
> people don't buy the "science" in it anyway, just as that don't believe
> in the science (flawed computer models) of climate change, aka AGW.
>
> Gimme a nudge when anything useful comes out of Darwin's atheist wet
> dream, will ya'?
Once again you shame us by showing what a post with content is like,
how civil disagreements should be worded, and your presentation of
arguments and evidence is, well. breath-taking.
Kermit
chris thompson
Well, I think Larry Hagman hit the jackpot- Jeannie was way hotter
than Samantha.
Chris
Mitchell Coffey
wrote:
Indeed. Her effect on the psycho-sexual development of men of a
certain generation cannot be over-emphasized. Among the general
population of men born between the Berlin Airlift and the Hungarian
Revolution, her influence was supreme. Among intellectuals her effect
was only exceeded by Diana Rigg as Emma Peel in The Avengers
(including leather attire and Lotus motor cars; it's a gestalt thing,
don't get me started).
NBC's puritanical insistence that Barbara Eden's seraglio costume
always rise above her navel, obscuring it, has been credited with
advancing cultural and political progressivism in this country, by
causing millions of heterosexual white boys to identify with the
oppressed.
Mitchell
el cid
And meanwhile, I recall the evening when my parents drove up for
a weekend visit and we sat down to watch a fairly new TV show
the kids liked, with life guards and such. It happened to be
the first episode of baywatch where they went all kooky with
low-mo endless Pam bouncy-bouncy scenes. And here I am, thinking
'but the last few weeks it was more like an update on Emergency!'
(the 70s era paramedics show with Randolf Mantooth and Kevin
Tighe of squad 51). Whatever our fond memmory of Barbara Eden
in her ballooning PJs, my son got Pam on the beach.
Burkhard
> On Mar 15, 7:18 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 10:41 am, MitchellCoffey<m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 14, 9:28 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:> Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Using "pussy" as synonymous with coward must
> > > > > endear you to all the strong women you know.
>
> > > > Why not? They see it as no different than using
> > > > "dick" -- as in "You're a dick" -- as a derogatory
> > > > term. (It is a penis reference, not a mention of
> > > > Dick York)
>
> > > [snip]
>
> > > I stand corrected. I'd always seen it as a reference to Dick Sargent.
>
> > > Mitchell Coffey
>
> > Well, I think Larry Hagman hit the jackpot- Jeannie was way hotter
> > than Samantha.
>
> Indeed. Her effect on the psycho-sexual development of men of a
> certain generation cannot be over-emphasized. Among the general
> population of men born between the Berlin Airlift and the Hungarian
> Revolution, her influence was supreme. Among intellectuals her effect
> was only exceeded by Diana Rigg as Emma Peel in The Avengers
> (including leather attire and Lotus motor cars; it's a gestalt thing,
> don't get me started).
You know that I actually applied for a job at Stirling when they made
her rector there, even though it would have meant a lower salary?
The kudos with my friends would have easily offset that .
Mitchell Coffey
You didn't bring your son up right.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
You have values. Most people don't have values anymore.
Mitchell Coffey
chris thompson
wrote:
I agree. It's nasty. There were probably dozens of teens who got Pam
on the beach on any particular night.
Chris
Robert Grumbine
> On Mar 9, 6:16 am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In article <hn03c9$rh...@speranza.aioe.org>, Nashton <n...@na.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On 3/4/10 7:52 PM, chris thompson wrote:
>> > > I have come to the conclusion that there's nothing left to do with evo-
>> > > deniers but to jeer at them.
>>
>> > > Sure, every now and then, there's someone who posts an interesting
>> > > question. For the most part though, the creationists are doing stupid
>> > > cut-and-pastes.
>>
>> > > Join me in jeering them.
>>
>> > ahead of you.
>>
>> > I started from day 1.
>>
>> > Take your useless theory and shove it, as far as I'm concerned. Most
>> > people don't buy the "science" in it anyway, just as that don't believe
>> > in the science (flawed computer models) of climate change, aka AGW.
>>
>> > Gimme a nudge when anything useful comes out of Darwin's atheist wet
>> > dream, will ya'?
>>
>> There is clear evidence from evolution in the dietary domain. Homer Sap,
>> is evidently not supposed to eat grains. And there wasn't a lot of fruit
>> on the Serengeti plain, either. Hint, eating carbohydrates requires
>> Vitamin C for processing.
>>
>
> Really? That would explain a few things... Do you have a cite or link?
Did you ever get an answer?
I'm guessing that the reference is to the 'citric acid cycle' in
metabolism. Not sure that we need an external supply of it, though.
If we did, I'd expect vitamin C deficiency to be rapidly fatal (hours-days)
as the entire metabolism shut down.
> Yeah, we are adapted to eat veggies, cooked and raw, lean meat, cooked
> and raw, and occasional fruit. No grains, no milk. Lots of exercise,
> and lots of leisure time.
And binge eating followed by little food for days.
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
gregwrld
At least I know how to read a
reference.
gregwrld