The nitwits
![[M]adman's profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
[M]adman
1) If Darwin was right, you will probably figure it out in a few million
years.
2)Why did the chicken cross the road?
Only The fittest chickens cross the road.
3)One day the zoo-keeper noticed that the orang-utan was reading two books -
the Bible and Darwin's The Origin of Species. In surprise he asked the ape,
"Why are you reading both those books"?
"Well," said the orang-utang, "I just wanted to know if I was my brother's
keeper or my keeper's brother."
4) How do you tell the sex of a chromosome?
Pull down its genes.
5) Q: What did one lab rat say to the other?
"I've got my scientist so well trained that every time I push the buzzer, he
brings me a snack.
--
It is all about the truth with:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
*Hemidactylus*
> 1) If Darwin was right, you will probably figure it out in a few million
> years.
>
evolutionary events in our lifetimes. A couple more bong hits and he
should perfect his theory.
>
> 2)Why did the chicken cross the road?
>
> Only The fittest chickens cross the road.
>
>
> 3)One day the zoo-keeper noticed that the orang-utan was reading two books -
> the Bible and Darwin's The Origin of Species. In surprise he asked the ape,
> "Why are you reading both those books"?
> "Well," said the orang-utang, "I just wanted to know if I was my brother's
> keeper or my keeper's brother."
>
>
> 4) How do you tell the sex of a chromosome?
>
> Pull down its genes.
>
>
> 5) Q: What did one lab rat say to the other?
>
> "I've got my scientist so well trained that every time I push the buzzer, he
> brings me a snack.
>
Boikat
<snip>
Hey, if it's jokes you want:
Scientist: Name one single example of a Cambrian mammal
Dullard: Trilobite!
> --
> It is all about demonstrating the ignorance of:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Boikat
B Richardson
>
>
> 2)Why did the chicken cross the road?
>
> Only The fittest chickens cross the road.
>
No, it was so it could high-five with the other chickens after
the driver crashed.
[M]adman
You are like that kid in grade school that makes a joke then tells that joke
every day until no one laughs anymore.
You never did learn to be cool, eh?
[M]adman
haha!!
Like the Geico commercials with the two squirrels!
Zuca
That one always cracks me up.
Jim Willemin
@bignews8.bellsouth.net:
Hey, I damn near got rear-ended yesterday because a pair of Canada geese
were walking across the freeway - it was a near thing, and lucky that the
other driver decided to take the shoulder. Of course, he almost took out
the geese, too. Fortunately, everyone involved escaped a Darwin award.
Gander: Jesus, Marge, the drivers today - zoom, zoom, zoom.
Goose: Well, Harry, never mind - let's go see about some of that nice
fresh grass..
wf3h
> 1) If Darwin was right, you will probably figure it out in a few million
> years.
>
> 2)Why did the chicken cross the road?
>
> Only The fittest chickens cross the road.
now let's see...
science said disease is caused by bacteria and is cured by antibiotics
creationism said disease is caused by sin and is cured by slaughtering
goats as an offering
uh...gee i wonder when adman goes to the doctor if he takes along a
goat.
creationism is SSSOOOOO useless.
Sapient Fridge
<gr...@hotmail.et> writes
Chuckle, I hadn't seen that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzoYOmfiEjI
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://spamsights.org http://spews.org http://spamhaus.org
Frank J
>
> 5) Q: What did one lab rat say to the other?
>
> "I've got my scientist so well trained that every time I push the buzzer, he
> brings me a snack.
That one is worth a temporarily break from my "no feeding" rule.
So here's a pizza, courtesy of Lenny's delivery boy (of the "one true
religion" fame). But since you're still in the cage, we get to poke,
and you get to howl. Unless you have trained Spinbill to do it for
you.
>
> --
> It is all about lies with:
Frank J
wrote:
> In message <ZjiEl.27593$i9.24...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "[M]adman"
> <g...@hotmail.et> writes
>
> >B Richardson wrote:
> >> On 2009-04-12, [M]adman <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>
> >>> 2)Why did the chicken cross the road?
>
> >>> Only The fittest chickens cross the road.
>
> >> No, it was so it could high-five with the other chickens after
> >> the driver crashed.
>
> >haha!!
>
> >Like the Geico commercials with the two squirrels!
>
> Chuckle, I hadn't seen that.
Heck, even I have seen that. And I have kept to my new years'
resolution not to watch or listen to any commercials.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzoYOmfiEjI
> --
> sapient_usene...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
> Grok:http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org* nuke a spammer *
> Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net * today *
Damaeus
"[M]adman" <gr...@hotmail.et> posted:
> 2)Why did the chicken cross the road?
>
> Only The fittest chickens cross the road.
Here's a cut/paste of one of my e-mails with a few jokes at the bottom
from an e-mail I sent to some skeptics on a skeptic's mailing list. The
quotation is from someone else, but I didn't reveal the name:
> So when the next advance comes in measurements and we refine our
> view of the earth's shape once again, are we going to suddenly
> discover that it's been a cube all along? That's pretty much
> what the creationists are saying when they say evolution is "just
> a theory" and that radiometric dating may not be accurate, etc,
> etc, etc.
I feel your pain. Usually Christians respond to perfectly logical and
legitimate responses like the skeptic's by saying that the revolutionary
advances in scientific observation is that we simply have more ability to
observe nature from a far greater perspective now than we have ever had
before, as well as from a far smaller perspective than we have ever had
before. Naturally there would be more "stuff" to see to explain how all
these things work. No need for God. The evidence is all around us. God,
in this day and age, becomes a currently meaningless term with an outdated
superstition attached to it. We should recognize God for what it is and
forget about it as a reference to deity. The very idea of it as a deity
is repulsive, anyway, just by the very nature of the idea of lordship for
all eternity. I suggest to all skeptics, that anytime you hear reference
to God in text or speech, simply talk about it from your own perspective.
Let them talk out their asses, while you spew out your intelligence and
insult their god to their faces:
Here are some suggestions. Imagine the Christian voice in a southern
belle accent:
Christian: "Jesus loves you."
Skeptic: "Oh... I thought that was an incubus!"
Christian: "I want to invite you to church tonight."
Skeptic: "That you can't just do it without wishing for it doesn't
surprise me for some reason."
Christian: "I prayed for you last night."
Skeptic: "Oh, god! That was a wet dream!!!!"
Christian: "Have you been saved?"
Skeptic: "No, I don't trust life extension technology yet."
Christian: "That priest touched my little boy!"
Skeptic: "Then you were watching since you can't certainly know that
any other way."
Damaeus
Boikat
Hey, I still find it funny. It illustrates your ignorance so
perfectly.
>
> You never did learn to be cool, eh?- Hide quoted text -
It's not about me being cool, or not. It's about you being an
arrogant, pig-ignorant, knuckle-dragging, chuckle-headded, fuctard.
You should be okay with that, since it's about *you*.
Boikat
*Hemidactylus*
its ability to split my side with laughter. Man that's evening at the
improv funny!
[M]adman
liar
[M]adman
> On Apr 12, 4:19 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>> Boikat wrote:
>>> On Apr 11, 10:21 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>> Hey, if it's jokes you want:
>>
>>> Scientist: Name one single example of a Cambrian mammal
>>
>>> Dullard: Trilobite!
>>
>>>> --
>>>> It is all about demonstrating the ignorance of:
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>> Boikat
>>
>> You are like that kid in grade school that makes a joke then tells
>> that joke every day until no one laughs anymore.
>
>
> Hey, I still find it funny. It illustrates your ignorance so
> perfectly.
*Yawn*
Boring
>
>>
>> You never did learn to be cool, eh?- Hide quoted text -
>
> It's not about me being cool, or not. It's about you being an
> arrogant, pig-ignorant, knuckle-dragging, chuckle-headded, fuctard.
THAT would be Y.O.U.
[M]adman
creationism did not say that dummy. Religion did.
*Hemidactylus*
wf3h
and this report was brought to you by the dept. of redundancy dept.
creationism IS religion, moron
Boikat
> Boikat wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 4:19 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> >> Boikat wrote:
> >>> On Apr 11, 10:21 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>
> >>> <snip>
>
> >>> Hey, if it's jokes you want:
>
> >>> Scientist: Name one single example of a Cambrian mammal
>
> >>> Dullard: Trilobite!
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> It is all about demonstrating the ignorance of:
> >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> >>> Boikat
>
> >> You are like that kid in grade school that makes a joke then tells
> >> that joke every day until no one laughs anymore.
>
> > Hey, I still find it funny. It illustrates your ignorance so
> > perfectly.
>
> *Yawn*
>
> Boring
Not to me.
>
>
>
> >> You never did learn to be cool, eh?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > It's not about me being cool, or not. It's about you being an
> > arrogant, pig-ignorant, knuckle-dragging, chuckle-headded, fuctard.
>
> THAT would be Y.O.U.
My. What a dazzling intellect you have. Not.
Boikat
Boikat
You wish. Hey, admonkey. If Cambrian mammals give you problems, how
about naming a single example of a Cambrian *reptile*?
Boikat
Devils Advocaat
Would that be a trilobite? :P
>
> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
*Hemidactylus*
trilobites as his example.
*Hemidactylus*
Rich Mathers
Coming to your local theater soon: "Death by a Million Trilobites."
Devils Advocaat
And in the fall "A Hundred and One Trilobites".
Followed by "When Trilobites Ruled the Earth".
Chris
wrote:
> In message <ZjiEl.27593$i9.24...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "[M]adman"
>
> >B Richardson wrote:
> >> On 2009-04-12, [M]adman <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>
> >>> 2)Why did the chicken cross the road?
>
> >>> Only The fittest chickens cross the road.
>
> >> No, it was so it could high-five with the other chickens after
> >> the driver crashed.
>
> >haha!!
>
> >Like the Geico commercials with the two squirrels!
>
> Chuckle, I hadn't seen that.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzoYOmfiEjI
hehe That was a new one for me too. I thought you were talking about
this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkSFeWNAOV0
Chris
> sapient_usene...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
> Grok:http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org* nuke a spammer *
> Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net * today *
[M]adman
Too bad you guys cannot focus on more important topics.
Such as God, your creator.
[M]adman
> On Apr 12, 7:45 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
> wrote:
>> In message <ZjiEl.27593$i9.24...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "[M]adman"
>> <g...@hotmail.et> writes
>>
>>> B Richardson wrote:
>>>> On 2009-04-12, [M]adman <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>>
>>>>> 2)Why did the chicken cross the road?
>>
>>>>> Only The fittest chickens cross the road.
>>
>>>> No, it was so it could high-five with the other chickens after
>>>> the driver crashed.
>>
>>> haha!!
>>
>>> Like the Geico commercials with the two squirrels!
>>
>> Chuckle, I hadn't seen that.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzoYOmfiEjI
>
> hehe That was a new one for me too. I thought you were talking about
> this one:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkSFeWNAOV0
>
> Chris
haha!!'
That is an even better one.
This one is funy too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfABnAS5i9Q
Rich Mathers
Too bad you have developed such an ignominious posting history that I
have no respect for your opinion.
RAM
Ernest Major
<ad...@hotmail.et> writes
religion? In other words, why are you promoting atheism?
--
alias Ernest Major
Chris
Far be it from me to pass up such a perfect straight line.
Which of the following is, or is not, evidence for design- and
why:
1. Genetic similarities in human and chimp are mirrored in morphology.
In fact, we have the same bones, the same blood vessels, the same
nerves, the same muscles, the same blood types. Is this evidence for
common design?
2. Mammalian hearts and avian hearts are both double pumps that
service complementary circulatory systems, yet the developmental
pathways
taken to arrive at these virtually identical structures differ in some
significant respects. Is this evidence for common design?
3. Prolactin is found in a wide range of vertebrates. It is an ancient
hormone that serves significantly different functions in different
animals. In some birds it helps regulate molting; in salmon it has a
role in homing behavior; in mammals it regulates milk production. The
hormone
has the same basic structure in all groups mentioned. Is this evidence
for common design?
4. Wings of birds and wings of insects arise from totally different
developmental pathways yet serve the same function- flight. Is this
evidence of common design? Feathers in birds are also thermoregulatory
organs, and organs of communication. Is this evidence for common
design? Scales in butterflies serve one of the same functions as
feathers in birds- coloration. Is this evidence for common design?
5. Hair in mammals is derived from the protein keratin. It is produced
in follicles in the dermis. Hair serves several functions in mammals,
such as thermoregulation, communication, camouflage and sensory input.
"Hairs" in plants are not derived from keratin. They are often
epidermal
outgrowths and might serve to reflect light, discourage
predators, absorb water, or even be sensory structures as in the Venus
Fly Trap. "Hairs" in arthropods are usually chitinous and serve a wide
variety of functions, but most often they seem to be antipredator
structures. They are often outgrowths of a single epidermal cell. Is
this evidence of common design?
Chris
[M]adman
THIS ladies and gentelmen, is the evolutionist brain on drugs.
Ernest Major
--
alias Ernest Major
Chris
> In message <hx_Gl.31443$qa.4...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "[M]adman"> >> In message <40SGl.31081$v8.22...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "[M]adman"
As an atheist, I would like to register a protest here. Your typical
atheist is considerably more reasonable than [M]adman.
Chris
Ernest Major
<f5b01a07-0d81-4818...@z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Chris <chris.li...@gmail.com> writes
was an atheist; I said that he was promoting atheism (whether that is
his intent or otherwise), in the same that Ray, Spintronic, Tony,
Backspace, etc, promote atheism.
--
alias Ernest Major
Chris
> Chris <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> writes
The clear implication is that atheism is characterized by dishonest
behavior. I don't think that's true, any more than I think all theists
are liars.
Chris
Boikat
No. It's a valid question. No wonder you can't answer it rationally.
Boikat
johnetho...@yahoo.com
No, creationism is a small, particularly stupid subset of religion.
spintronic
> On Apr 19, 11:35 pm, "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmail.et> wrote:
1,2,3,4,5?????
Yes.
Ernest Major
<358fafe3-477a-4dcf...@m19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Chris <chris.li...@gmail.com> writes
but I thought people here knew that I was an atheist.) I thought I was
making a point about dishonest or delusional theists promoting atheism.
You seem to have made two assumptions
1) that people who promote atheism intend to do so.
2) that people who intend to promote atheism are atheists.
neither of which is necessarily true, and the first at least of which I
believe is frequently false.
--
alias Ernest Major
Chris
You were.
You know, I just now thought of this from another perspective. I see
now that you meant they were promoting atheism as a desirable
alternative. Up to now I thought you meant they were trying to set an
example of atheist behavior. OK I think that cleared it up.
>
> You seem to have made two assumptions
>
> 1) that people who promote atheism intend to do so.
> 2) that people who intend to promote atheism are atheists.
Actually, neither of those was a requirement for what I thought you
were implying- not that it matters any more.
> neither of which is necessarily true, and the first at least of which I
> believe is frequently false.
Right. We agree there.
Chris
> --
> alias Ernest Major
Chris
We see once again that spin's attention span is such that he cannot
make it to the end of the first sentence of a post. Otherwise he would
have reached the part that said "...and why."
Chris
spintronic
> On Apr 20, 11:51 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 1,2,3,4,5?????
>
> > Yes.
>
> We see once again that spin's attention span is such that he cannot
Where are the chocolates?
Chris
When an intelligent person does something like this, it's funny.
Chris
spintronic
> On Apr 20, 1:57 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 1,2,3,4,5?????
>
> > > > Yes.
>
> > > We see once again that spin's attention span is such that he cannot
>
> > Where are the chocolates?
>
> When an intelligent person does something like this, it's funny.
Ah, You love it really.
Chris
Well, no. I love my wife. There's an undeniable pleasure, though, in
giving you all these opportunities to show every Usenet reader who
cares to stop by just how bankrupt the creationist position really is.
So what are your explanations for those phenomena I described being
evidence for design? We're still waiting you know, and unlike you, we
have attention spans longer than that possessed by your typical
nematode.
Chris
spintronic
> On Apr 20, 2:48 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 20, 7:08 pm, Chris <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 20, 1:57 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 1,2,3,4,5?????
>
> > > > > > Yes.
>
> > > > > We see once again that spin's attention span is such that he cannot
>
> > > > Where are the chocolates?
>
> > > When an intelligent person does something like this, it's funny.
>
> > Ah, You love it really.
>
> Well, no. I love my wife.
So do I, (mine I mean).
> There's an undeniable pleasure,
& euphoric dillusion,
> though, in giving you all these opportunities to show every
> Usenet reader who cares to stop by just how bankrupt the
> creationist position really is.
Iv'e yet to hear a solvent argument from you yet.
Try the circle, see how you get on there.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Are you using a private definition of the word "solvent" here? I know
you do that frequently, and as the normal meaning makes no sense here
I don't know if you actually are trying to say something else or are
just being incoherent.
Devils Advocaat
do things the way you believe he/she/it should.
>
>
>
> >> - Hide quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Burkhard
Ernest Major
<32447780-404c-4364...@p6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
"johnetho...@yahoo.com" <johnetho...@yahoo.com> writes
Possibly he means non-bankrupt. Unfortunately for his comprehensibility
the metaphorical use of the bankrupt-solvent dichotomy customarily only
extends to the former.
While he may be an expert in bankrupt arguments, I wouldn't trust his
public identification of arguments as bankrupt.
>
>>
>> Try the circle, see how you get on there.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
spintronic
<johnethompson2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 12:54 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > though, in giving you all these opportunities to show every
> > > Usenet reader who cares to stop by just how bankrupt the
> > > creationist position really is.
>
> > Iv'e yet to hear a solvent argument from you yet.
>
> Are you using a private definition of the word "solvent" here?
(opposite of Bankrupt).
You should get a dictionary & a brain to read it.
> I know you do that frequently, and as the normal meaning makes no sense here
To you.
> I don't know if you actually are trying to say something else or are
> just being incoherent.
Hmm.
spintronic
> In message
> Possibly he means non-bankrupt. Unfortunately for his comprehensibility
> the metaphorical use of the bankrupt-solvent dichotomy......
"Dichotomy"? A "rainbow" is a "dichotomy".
"Bankrupt-Solvent" are two separate entities.
You can only separate 2 separate entities into the 2 entities
themselves.
"Rainbow" is one entity, separating into "rain" & "bow".
You do know what a "Dichotomy" is don't you?
> While he may be an expert in bankrupt arguments, I wouldn't trust his
> public identification of arguments as bankrupt.
Hmm.
Dr. Acula
> On Apr 20, 10:22 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In message
> > Possibly he means non-bankrupt. Unfortunately for his comprehensibility
> > the metaphorical use of the bankrupt-solvent dichotomy......
>
> "Dichotomy"? A "rainbow" is a "dichotomy".
>
> "Bankrupt-Solvent" are two separate entities.
>
> You can only separate 2 separate entities into the 2 entities
> themselves.
>
> "Rainbow" is one entity, separating into "rain" & "bow".
>
> You do know what a "Dichotomy" is don't you?
It would appear that you don't.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
> On Apr 20, 9:44 pm, "johnethompson2...@yahoo.com"
>
> <johnethompson2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 20, 12:54 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > though, in giving you all these opportunities to show every
> > > > Usenet reader who cares to stop by just how bankrupt the
> > > > creationist position really is.
>
> > > Iv'e yet to hear a solvent argument from you yet.
>
> > Are you using a private definition of the word "solvent" here?
>
> (opposite of Bankrupt).
>
> You should get a dictionary & a brain to read it.
How does one determine if an idea has monetary assets that are greater
than its debts?
spintronic
<johnethompson2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2:39 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > You should get a dictionary & a brain to read it.
>
> How does one determine if an idea has monetary assets that are greater
> than its debts?
Easy (yearly wage * 25 years) - (parents investment).
Also by the fact that being a "carpark attendant" (like yourself) it
is impossible
to repay the debts your parents are in after having the *bright* idea
that
you should get the best education that money can buy.
Chris
We're waiting for you to tell us why you think all those phenomena I
mentioned are evidence of design. You've twisted and turned and
repeatedly attempted to change the subject. It is painfully apparent
you have nothing substantial to say on the topic.
And this is what you should have written: "I've yet to hear a cogent
argument from you." "Cogent" is preferable "solvent" and there's no
need to repeat "yet". But it's not bad compared to what you write
downthread from here, which is simply incoherent. Stop drugging.
Chris
spintronic
> On Apr 20, 3:54 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Iv'e yet to hear a solvent argument from you yet.
>
> We're waiting for you to tell us why you think all those
Do you have any chocolates?......
Now what was I saying?
Chris
Oh please, keep it up.
I know you think it's just hilarious to keep trolling for responses
like this, and of course I'll oblige you. I will just keep asking you
to tell me why all those phenomena I mentioned earlier are evidence
for design. [M]adman just runs from the question. You think you're
trolling me, but in reality it's just the reverse- except everyone
sees you're a troll with no brain. So yeah, keep making nitwit
responses. I was going to say, keep acting the retard, but it's not an
act anymore, is it? Stop drugging and maybe you can salvage something.
Chris
Ye Old One
>> We see once again that spin's attention span is such that he cannot make it to
>> the end of the first sentence of a post. Otherwise he would have reached
>> the part that said "...and why."
>
>
>Where are the chocolates?
Your stupidity is showing - as usual.
--
Bob.