Creation Vs. Evolution - Item 5
Budikka666
Item 1: http://tinyurl.com/mnkb94
Item 2: http://tinyurl.com/n9dcfh
Item 3: http://tinyurl.com/kt2exk
Item 4: http://tinyurl.com/mfztxy
so let's keep 'em going with another one.
No one knows exactly how many individual species of butterfly and moth
there are in the world, but there may be as many as 28,000 for the
butterfly and a quarter million for the moth, as well as several
thousand species still not described.
Evolutionists have no problem explaining all these species at all.
But what does the non-existent "Theory of Creation" say about them?
Well, again, there' s controversy in the creationist camp on this
topic (as with many other topics). Some creationists insist on
telling the truth and say the world is 4.5 billion years old. Other
creationists outright lie and claim that Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000
years old. These young-Earth creationists also insist the entire
globe was covered by water just 4,300 or so years ago (according to
the chronology detailed in the Bible).
But if, just 4,300 years ago, there were only two butterflies/moths on
an ark, how did they ever evolve into maybe 300,000 species?
This would mean over 60 new species arising every single year since
the flood, or more than one new species every week, every month, every
year, for 4,300 years.
If there are no good mutations and there's no evolution, how do
creationists explain this? Please give a scientifically supported
answer just as an evolutionist would when faced with a similar
question
Budikka
Dan Listermann
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:4063fc5d-13ed-4030...@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Is it not true that according to "Creationist theory," all members of the
canine family, have all the genes that they ever had and ever will have.
Mutations don't happen. Should it not be possible to easily breed wolves
into Chihuahuas and vice versa?
ilbe...@gmail.com
> If there are no good mutations and there's no evolution, how do
> answer just as an evolutionist would when faced with a similar
> question
>
> Budikka
Speaking of BUtterflies, how about explaining how Evolution accounts
for the Monarch Butterfly 4 th generation ONLY, making the trek from
canada to mexico on the exact day of the fall equinox and leaving
Mexico on the exact spring equinox ??? Tell us how mutational
evolution did it please. Be exact . Dont be shy.
Dan Listermann
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d2cc967-6bcb-4803...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
If I were speaking for a religion, I would just make up some story and
threaten to kill anyone who disagreed. But being scientific minded, I see
it as a great wonder and rich with very interesting research potential.
Hey, check out pigeon navigation for a mystery. Maybe you can be the guy
who makes up the story!
Ralph
Why don't you tell us why god has them to do that. Don't be shy Dave,
just tell us what your simple little mind thinks.
Budikka
wrote:
When you have a challenge that doesn't revolve around an outright lie,
do be sure to let us know.
When you have *that* and when you've answered the following six unmet
challenges, THEN I'll give you the time of day. Until then, you're
nothing but cowardly, vacuous Hypocritical scum.
Unmet challenge #1
The challenge I offered Chicken Andrew, Chicken "I'll be Baulked",
Chicken Gabriel et al in this thread:
http://tinyurl.com/nubnxr
on May 11th 2009. All of them RAN AWAY.
Unmet challenge #2
Provide *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation. Not Bible
quotes. Not quotes from creationists or atheists or evolutionists.
Not divine revelation. Not juvenile unsupported ignorant assertions.
Not chants of 'no it isn't!'. Not counter challenges when you haven't
even met ours, but *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation.
Unmet challenge #3
Provide evidence that shows how DNA is the work of a creator. Show us
this evidence and explain how it demonstrates a creator.
Unmet challenge #4
Support claims that bacteria have never arisen from anything other
than bacteria/life has never arisen from anything but life.
Unmet challenge #5
Provide evidence in support of the creationist claim that information
cannot be added to a genome.
Unmet challenge #6
Define scientifically what the "genetic boundaries" are: specifically
what the mechanism is which (according to creationist claims) prevents
one species from evolving into another species over time.
I'm waiting.
Budikka
Budikka
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
Anything is possible with "creationist Theory"! Didn't you *know*
that?
Budikka
Martin
Take a look on another thread. I've already answered that. The simple
answer is IT IS NOT TRUE. Only the 4th generation migrates, that is
true. But they do it any time that month, or even earlier if it gets
too cold. Look it up somewhere other than creationist literature.
Free Lunch
<d...@listermann.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Why haven't Christians added Rudyard Kipling's _Just-so Stories_ to
their collection of just-so stories?
Free Lunch
<ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Apparently you are so proud of your ignorance that you haven't even
heard of instinct.
Dan Listermann
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:s98475lpr1l22pha8...@4ax.com...
I don't see why not?
Andrew
> "IlBe...@gmail.com" wrote:
> "Speaking of BUtterflies, how about explaining how Evolution accounts
> for the Monarch Butterfly 4 th generation ONLY, making the trek from
> canada to mexico on the exact day of the fall equinox and leaving
> Mexico on the exact spring equinox ??? Tell us how mutational
> *****************************************************
> If I were speaking for a religion, I would just make up some story and
> threaten to kill anyone who disagreed. But being scientific minded, I
> see it as a great wonder and rich with very interesting research potential.
There is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of
sequential genetic reserves as found in the Monarch
Butterfly.
~ Andrew
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
Science does not claim omniscience.
The lack of a commplete explanation only means that we have not yet
figured it out, not that some imagined "godidit".
Christopher A. Lee
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Dan Listermann" wrote:
>> > "IlBe...@gmail.com" wrote:
>> > "Speaking of BUtterflies, how about explaining how Evolution accounts
>> > for the Monarch Butterfly 4 th generation ONLY, making the trek from
>> > canada to mexico on the exact day of the fall equinox and leaving
>> > Mexico on the exact spring equinox ??? Tell us how mutational
>> > evolution did it please. Be exact . Dont be shy." (IlBeBauck)
>> > *****************************************************
>> > If I were speaking for a religion, I would just make up some story and
>> > threaten to kill anyone who disagreed. But being scientific minded, I
>> > see it as a great wonder and rich with very interesting research potential.
>> > (Dan Listermann)
>>
>> There is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of
>> sequential genetic reserves as found in the Monarch
>> Butterfly.
>>
>> ~ Andrew
>
> Science does not claim omniscience.
>
> The lack of a commplete explanation only means that we have not yet
> figured it out, not that some imagined "godidit".
Let's put it this way.
There is no possibility for the naturalistic origin
of sequential genetic reserves as are found in the
Monarch Butterfly.
~ Andrew
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
YOU ARE A PIG-IGNORANT, STUPID, CERTIFIABLY
INSANE, IN-DENIAL, DELUDED FANATIC LIVING IN HIS
OWN LITTLE FANTASY WORLD.
LITTLE FANTASY WORLD
DELIBERATE LIAR.
>
MarkA
You know EVERYTHING that is naturalistically possible? The Nobel Prize
nominating committee is going to be mad that you have been holding out!
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Free Lunch
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
You forgot that he worships this ignorance and self-delusion.
Andrew is so full of himself that he cannot stomach the possibility that
he didn't get made specially by a god, so he invented his own personal
god to do this.
Ralph
So?
Did you know that Moses never received the 'law' from god? That the
Hebrews were polytheistic? Can you explain that?
Ralph
Really? The butterfly exists, doesn't it? Since there is no god it came
into being in some manner.
So much for your ideas.
Dan Listermann
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:eKWdndKj1YsEMu_X...@earthlink.com...
If that is really the case, does it mean that there can never be an
naturalisticn explanition - ever?
Did you check out pigeon navigation? They just might display a yet
undiscovered sixth sense or maybe special navigational deities, who knows?
Dan Listermann
Dan Listermann
And his deity even looks like him - a great ape.
P. D. Wright
news:eKWdndKj1YsEMu_X...@earthlink.com:
None that you'll bother reading about, no.
It's there, but you can't make a fundie think.
PDW
P. D. Wright
news:Me6dneNt8Ks1Ie_X...@earthlink.com:
Repeating your lie will not make it true, lier Andrew.
PDW
Martin
> "Virgil" wrote in messagenews:Virgil-1B4046....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Dan Listermann" wrote:
> >> > "Speaking of BUtterflies, how about explaining how Evolution accounts
> >> > for the Monarch Butterfly 4 th generation ONLY, making the trek from
> >> > canada to mexico on the exact day of the fall equinox and leaving
> >> > Mexico on the exact spring equinox ??? Tell us how mutational
> >> > evolution did it please. Be exact . Dont be shy." (IlBeBauck)
> >> > *****************************************************
> >> > If I were speaking for a religion, I would just make up some story and
> >> > threaten to kill anyone who disagreed. But being scientific minded, I
> >> > see it as a great wonder and rich with very interesting research potential.
> >> > (Dan Listermann)
>
> >> There is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of
> >> sequential genetic reserves as found in the Monarch
> >> Butterfly.
>
> >> ~ Andrew
>
> > Science does not claim omniscience.
>
> > The lack of a commplete explanation only means that we have not yet
> > figured it out, not that some imagined "godidit".
>
> Let's put it this way.
>
> There is no possibility for the naturalistic origin
> of sequential genetic reserves as are found in the
> Monarch Butterfly.
>
> ~ Andrew
You've just thrown some stupid shit against the wall, and guess what?
It didn't stick.
Why don't you spend you time answering some questions that have been
asked of you, instead of talking nonsense.
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
Did your god tell you that? If so it lied.
Andrew
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message news:eKWdndKj1YsEMu_X...@earthlink.com...
>> "Dan Listermann" wrote in message news:4806$4a71c32d$4a53bf9f$64...@FUSE.NET...
>>> "IlBe...@gmail.com" wrote:
>>> "Speaking of BUtterflies, how about explaining how Evolution accounts
>>> for the Monarch Butterfly 4 th generation ONLY, making the trek from
>>> canada to mexico on the exact day of the fall equinox and leaving
>>> Mexico on the exact spring equinox ??? Tell us how mutational
>>> evolution did it please. Be exact . Dont be shy." (IlBeBauck)
>>> *****************************************************
>>> If I were speaking for a religion, I would just make up some story and
>>> threaten to kill anyone who disagreed. But being scientific minded, I
>>> see it as a great wonder and rich with very interesting research potential.
>>> (Dan Listermann)
>>
>> There is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of
>> sequential genetic reserves as found in the Monarch
>> Butterfly.
>>
>
> If that is really the case, does it mean that there can never be an
> naturalisticn explanition - ever?
That is correct.
> Did you check out pigeon navigation? They just might display a
> yet undiscovered sixth sense or maybe special navigational deities,
> who knows?
Their sophisticated navigational system is believed to be dependent on
the earths magnetic field, the cryptochromes in their eyes and software
in their brain - all evidence of their Creator.
Andrew
Andrew
This is interesting, that this information on the Monarch Butterfly
causes you to think about the law of God. Perhaps because
here is solid evidence of a Creator whose law condemns you.
But His law condemns ALL of us, Ralph. That's why we need
a Savior - Jesus.
Andrew
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Dan Listermann" wrote:
>>> "IlBe...@gmail.com" wrote:
>>> "Speaking of BUtterflies, how about explaining how Evolution
>>> accounts for the Monarch Butterfly 4 th generation ONLY, making the
>>> trek from canada to mexico on the exact day of the fall equinox and
>>> leaving Mexico on the exact spring equinox ??? Tell us how
>>> mutational evolution did it please. Be exact . Dont be shy."
>>> (IlBeBauck) *****************************************************
>>> If I were speaking for a religion, I would just make up some story
>>> and threaten to kill anyone who disagreed. But being scientific
>>> minded, I see it as a great wonder and rich with very interesting
>>> research potential. (Dan Listermann)
>>
>> There is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of
>> sequential genetic reserves as found in the Monarch
>> Butterfly.
>>
>> ~ Andrew
>>
>
> None that you'll bother reading about, no.
> It's there, but you can't make a fundie think.
>
> PDW
Please post it, if it is free from fantasy.
P. D. Wright
His own ignorance of science and everything else.
PDW
Dan Listermann
Dan Listermann
> "Dan Listermann" wrote in message
> news:90aea$4a72fac7$4a53bf9f$87...@FUSE.NET...
>> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
>> news:eKWdndKj1YsEMu_X...@earthlink.com...
>>> "Dan Listermann" wrote in message
>>> news:4806$4a71c32d$4a53bf9f$64...@FUSE.NET...
>>>> "IlBe...@gmail.com" wrote:
>>>> "Speaking of BUtterflies, how about explaining how Evolution accounts
>>>> for the Monarch Butterfly 4 th generation ONLY, making the trek from
>>>> canada to mexico on the exact day of the fall equinox and leaving
>>>> Mexico on the exact spring equinox ??? Tell us how mutational
>>>> evolution did it please. Be exact . Dont be shy." (IlBeBauck)
>>>> *****************************************************
>>>> If I were speaking for a religion, I would just make up some story and
>>>> threaten to kill anyone who disagreed. But being scientific minded, I
>>>> see it as a great wonder and rich with very interesting research
>>>> potential.
>>>> (Dan Listermann)
>>>
>>> There is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of
>>> sequential genetic reserves as found in the Monarch
>>> Butterfly.
>>>
>>
>> If that is really the case, does it mean that there can never be an
>> naturalisticn explanition - ever?
>
> That is correct.
You can then change a wolf into any dog and back again, at least in theory,
right?
>
>> Did you check out pigeon navigation? They just might display a
>> yet undiscovered sixth sense or maybe special navigational deities,
>> who knows?
>
> Their sophisticated navigational system is believed to be dependent on
> the earths magnetic field, the cryptochromes in their eyes and software
> in their brain - all evidence of their Creator.
>
All possible, except the need for a creator, that is myth.
AndrewWa...@moron.net
wrote:
How is this "evidence" for a hypothetical creator that you still
haven't demonstrated, moron?
Do you honestly not understand just how much work you have to do
before making such stupid claims?
>
>
>
>Andrew
>
>
AndrewL...@liarliarpantson.fire
wrote:
>"Ralph" wrote in message news:Z_6dndzaJeJIbO_X...@giganews.com...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> "Dan Listermann" wrote in message news:4806$4a71c32d$4a53bf9f$64...@FUSE.NET...
>>>> "IlBe...@gmail.com" wrote:
>>>> "Speaking of BUtterflies, how about explaining how Evolution accounts
>>>> for the Monarch Butterfly 4 th generation ONLY, making the trek from
>>>> canada to mexico on the exact day of the fall equinox and leaving
>>>> Mexico on the exact spring equinox ??? Tell us how mutational
>>>> evolution did it please. Be exact . Dont be shy." (IlBeBauck)
>>>> *****************************************************
>>>> If I were speaking for a religion, I would just make up some story and
>>>> threaten to kill anyone who disagreed. But being scientific minded, I
>>>> see it as a great wonder and rich with very interesting research potential.
>>>> (Dan Listermann)
>>>
>>> There is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of
>>> sequential genetic reserves as found in the Monarch
>>> Butterfly.
>>>
>>> ~ Andrew
>>>
>>
>>
>> So?
>>
>> Did you know that Moses never received the 'law' from god? That
>> the Hebrews were polytheistic? Can you explain that?
>
>This is interesting, that this information on the Monarch Butterfly
>causes you to think about the law of God.
Liar.
> Perhaps because
>here is solid evidence of a Creator
Liar.
> whose law condemns you.
Liar.
>But His law condemns ALL of us,
Liar.
> Ralph. That's why we need
>a Savior - Jesus.
Liar.
>Andrew
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
The only fantasy has been yours, hypocrite.
Ralph
No, nothing causes me to think of your god except when I am around fools
like you. Just pointed out to you that there was never a law of Moses
until King Josiah 'found' the same mentioned law. If you read your bible
carefully, as a good creationist should do, you will see the "truth":-))
Ralph
Oh, you mean free from religion?
P. D. Wright
news:NdKdnVw_Yfynz-7X...@earthlink.com:
Your lying yet again, Andrew.
PDW
P. D. Wright
P. D. Wright
news:Hc-dnTkclLb2ye7X...@earthlink.com:
If it was free from fantasy, you'd never read it; Your fantasy god makes
no appearence.
PDW
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
As a useful explanation of anything, "godidit" sucks.
And those, like Andrew, who insist that that is the only explanation,
suck along.
No one in the past can have predicted everything that can be explained
today, so no one like idiot Andrew can correctly claim to know what can
never be explained on some tomorrow.
But idiot theists like Andrew are always predicting falsely.
The large number of time xtains have predicted the end of the world,
only to have the date pass quietly, is evidence of their idiocy.
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
There are "laws of nature" as found by humans, but only human fairy
tales about "laws of gods".
Perhaps because
> here is solid evidence of a Creator whose law condemns you.
Where is theree any evidence of any creator other than of those who
reate myths about creators.
> But His law condemns ALL of us, Ralph. That's why we need
> a Savior - Jesus.
Whose laws? Where is this thing you claim exists.
Where is any evidence that any such a thing exists?
That we are ignorant of some things does not mean that there must be
entities which are not.
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
Since your postings are almost entirely fantasy, why try to restrict
others from being equally fanciful?
Free Lunch
Not even close.
Of course, you don't read what your critics have to say, so you won't
have to admit that you are wrong, again. Telling us falsehoods while
refusing to learn shows that you are not an ethical person. Telling us
about your doctrines about gods tells us that you think that the creator
was a trickster.
Budikka
The challenge I offered Chicken Andrew, Chicken "I'll be Baulked",
Chicken Gabriel et al in this thread:
http://tinyurl.com/nubnxr
on May 11th 2009. All of them RAN AWAY.
Unmet challenge #2
Provide *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation. Not Bible
quotes. Not quotes from creationists or atheists or evolutionists.
Not divine revelation. Not juvenile unsupported ignorant assertions.
Not chants of 'no it isn't!'. Not counter challenges when you haven't
even met ours, but *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation.
Unmet challenge #3
Provide evidence that shows how DNA is the work of a creator. Show us
this evidence and explain how it demonstrates a creator.
Unmet challenge #4
Support claims that bacteria have never arisen from anything other
than bacteria/life has never arisen from anything but life.
Unmet challenge #5
Provide evidence in support of the creationist claim that information
cannot be added to a genome.
Unmet challenge #6
Define scientifically what the "genetic boundaries" are: specifically
what the mechanism is which (according to creationist claims) prevents
one species from evolving into another species over time.
I'm waiting.
Budikka
Budikka
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Dan Listermann" wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> "Dan Listermann" wrote:
>
> As a useful explanation of anything, "godidit" sucks.
> And those, like Andrew, who insist that that is the only explanation,
> suck along.
>
> No one in the past can have predicted everything that can be explained
> today, so no one like idiot Andrew can correctly claim to know what can
> never be explained on some tomorrow.
>
> But idiot theists like Andrew are always predicting falsely.
> The large number of time xtains have predicted the end of the world,
> only to have the date pass quietly, is evidence of their idiocy.
And what does this have to do with the pigeon navigational system?
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Virgil" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> "Dan Listermann" wrote:
>>>> > "IlBe...@gmail.com" wrote:
>>>> > "Speaking of BUtterflies, how about explaining how Evolution accounts
>>>> > for the Monarch Butterfly 4 th generation ONLY, making the trek from
>>>> > canada to mexico on the exact day of the fall equinox and leaving
>>>> > Mexico on the exact spring equinox ??? Tell us how mutational
>>>> > evolution did it please. Be exact . Dont be shy." (IlBeBauck)
>>>> > *****************************************************
>>>> > If I were speaking for a religion, I would just make up some story and
>>>> > threaten to kill anyone who disagreed. But being scientific minded, I
>>>> > see it as a great wonder and rich with very interesting research potential.
>>>> > (Dan Listermann)
>>>>
>>>> There is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of
>>>> sequential genetic reserves as found in the Monarch
>>>> Butterfly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Science does not claim omniscience.
>>>
>>> The lack of a commplete explanation only means that we have not yet
>>> figured it out, not that some imagined "godidit".
>>
>> Let's put it this way.
>>
>> of sequential genetic reserves as are found in the
>> Monarch Butterfly.
>>
>>
> And that statement is based on what exactly?
Do some research on sequential genetic reserves.
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
That neither you, nor anyone else, can say for certain that
(1) humans will never be able to figure out how it works, or
(2) humans will never be able to figure out how it evolved.
Human religions have been around for many thousands of years (many more
than the biblical myth of 6000), but science has only been around for a
few hundred at most, and is growing faster than exponentially.
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
That is a non-response, so that one must conclude that "Andrew" cannot
justify his claim.
Budikka
John Smith
Duhhhh ..... "goddidit" is not a reality based answer.
John Smith
IOW "I have no answer".
Dan Listermann
Dan Listermann
are three deities that evenly occupy their kidneys at the same time yet
never at once. They triangulate with a deity that is in their rectum whose
duty we don't need to address at the moment. Prove me wrong!
Dan Listermann
> "Dan Listermann" wrote in message
>>> "Dan Listermann" wrote in message
>>>> "IlBe...@gmail.com" wrote:
>>>> "Speaking of BUtterflies, how about explaining how Evolution accounts
>>>> for the Monarch Butterfly 4 th generation ONLY, making the trek from
>>>> canada to mexico on the exact day of the fall equinox and leaving
>>>> Mexico on the exact spring equinox ??? Tell us how mutational
>>>> evolution did it please. Be exact . Dont be shy." (IlBeBauck)
>>>> *****************************************************
>>>> If I were speaking for a religion, I would just make up some story and
>>>> threaten to kill anyone who disagreed. But being scientific minded, I
>>>> see it as a great wonder and rich with very interesting research
>>>> potential.
>>>> (Dan Listermann)
>>>
>>> There is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of
>>> sequential genetic reserves as found in the Monarch
>>> Butterfly.
>>>
>>
>> If that is really the case, does it mean that there can never be an
>> naturalisticn explanition - ever?
>
> That is correct.
>
>> Did you check out pigeon navigation? They just might display a
>> yet undiscovered sixth sense or maybe special navigational deities,
>> who knows?
>
> Their sophisticated navigational system is believed to be dependent on
> the earths magnetic field, the cryptochromes in their eyes and software
> in their brain - all evidence of their Creator.
>
Nobody knows. Magnets attached to their heads don't bother their navigation
and frosted contact lenses don't stop them from homing except that they
crash land. It is a scientific mystery in dire need of a silly myth to
explain it.
My guys did 70 miles Saturday. Week after next, they will do 100. I am
hoping to get them to 350. Next spring, the old birds will do up to 600 in
a single day from a place they have never been before. The record is from
Viet Nam to France in 23 days.
Christopher A. Lee
He "knows" therefore he doesn't need evidence. But there must be some.
And because we "want" it, it's up to us to find it.
He's to stupid to understand the concept of backing up a claim.
And that we don't want it for ourselves, it's "put up or shut up".
But he's a Christian so he's exempt from that.
Dan Listermann
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:lmhb751735f2ae2qv...@4ax.com...
See, all he needs to do is to "BELIEVE." It is very simple and convenient!
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Silly myths? Humph. May the ghost of Rudyard Kipling haunt you until you
realize that they are called just-so stories.
P. D. Wright
news:ssudnWLPmoLQUenX...@earthlink.com:
What does your repsonce have to do with anything?
PDW
Andrew
IOW: "If you don't spoon feed me, I will remain in ignorance."
LyingAndre...@funnyfarm.org
wrote:
Beam. Mote. Eye. Projecting. Hypocrite.
We've been spoon feeding you, serial liar.
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "If you don't spoon feed me, I will remain in ignorance."
Well, we aren't going to spoon feed you.
John Smith
You've been "spoon fed" ever since you started posting here - and it has not
changed your ignorance one bit.
Budikka
Budikka
P. D. Wright
news:LdmdnWCpoq2elerX...@earthlink.com:
Yep; That's a perfect description of you, Andrew.
PDW