The Borg
All-Seeing-I
obviously not.
Boikat
> Do any of you have an independent thought of your own?
So, it's now down to nothing but starting threads consisting only of
insults?
>
> obviously not.
This is comical, coming from an anti-science twit that just stated in
another thread that he *choses* to deny scientific evidence and
rejects scientific theories because it's *easier to just say
"Goddidit!"*.
In other words, you're even against "independant thought".
You're pathetic.
Boikat
Friar Broccoli
> Do any of you have an independent thought of your own?
>
> obviously not.
I have many independent thoughts.
However, I try to confine my beliefs to those that are
supported by evidence.
Do you have evidence that seals were uniquely Designed?
You presented none.
Frank J
>
> obviously not.
So you are agreeing that Ray Martinez, Tony Pagano, Nashton, Nando,
Seanpit, backspace, spintronic, etc. have no independent thoughts of
their own?
TomS
<27ca2231-50f7-43c1...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Boikat
stated..."
>
>On Nov 29, 9:31=A0am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> Do any of you have an independent thought of your own?
>
>So, it's now down to nothing but starting threads consisting only of
>insults?
As is so often the case, the complaint from the creationist applies,
if it applies to anything at all, with far greater force against
creationism.
Is there any positive substance to anything in creationism? Is
there anything which might be dignified with the word "thought"?
Any thoughts about *why* the human body has its place in the tree
of life as a neighbor to chimps and other apes? Any thoughts about
why there is a tree of life? Why would the creator/designers want
the world of life to be like that? Why would humans have eyes more
like the eyes of other vertebrates rather than like the eyes of
insects or of octopuses or of potatoes?
*Why* is anything in the world of life the way that it is, when the
creator/designers could do anything at all? Is it just a matter of
"random chance", some massive coincidence that there is that pattern
of great complexity to the world of life? Do they have any thoughts
about that - or about anything else?
Any thoughts, independent, or just borrowed from the hundreds
of years of creationists, or from any of the supposed great number
of scientists and other thinkers of recent times who are
creationists?
>
>>
>> obviously not.
>
>This is comical, coming from an anti-science twit that just stated in
>another thread that he *choses* to deny scientific evidence and
>rejects scientific theories because it's *easier to just say
>"Goddidit!"*.
>
>In other words, you're even against "independant thought".
>
>You're pathetic.
>
>Boikat
>
If not "why", how about *what* sort of thing was supposed to have
happened, *what* sort of thing changed, *what* sort of thing was
created/designed (or even just an example of the sort of thing,
real or hypothetical, that was not), *what* was there before it
happened (and was that stuff created/designed), and *what* would
we notice if we were there when it happened?
If not "why", or "what", how about *when* did those creations/
designs take place, when did they start happening and when did
they stop, were they repeated events or once only, instantaneous
or stretched out over time?
*Where* did it happen? *How*? *Who* did it - in the words of
Michael Behe: "...the God of Christianity; an angel--fallen or not;
Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from
Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent
being."? Quoted by Casey Luskin at:
<http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341>
Any thoughts at all? Other than "whatever happened, it couldn't
have involved evolution"? Or *could* it have involved evolution?
Any thoughts?
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Will in New Haven
>
> obviously not.
I have huge areas of disagreement with almost everyone on here who
accepts evolution. That is the only thing we have in common, in many
cases. We accept it because it is supported overwhelmingly _by the
evidence_
For the love of Mike, there are theists on here who accept evolution.
I disagree with THEM on a central question of our lives. There are
hard-line "we can prove it" atheists on here who accept evolution. I
may be the only "let the fucking mystery BE" devotee on here. There
are collectivist slime on here and gun-grabbers and other statist
monkeys. There are several people on here who think I am unduly unkind
to you. I certainly disagree with THEM. I'm too nice to you, if
anything. There's a PHILOSOPHER on here. No one agrees with a
philosopher. There are BEER-DRINKERS on here. Wild Turkey made beer
obsolete many years ago.
We agree on the central topic for this newsgroup because we are
right.
--
Will in New Haven
chris thompson
>
> obviously not.
Coming from someone who believes all knowledge is to be found texts
written in antiquity, rather than in original research published in
current journals, this is rather ironic.
Chris
R Brown
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:c5df6e7e-c033-4f88...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> Do any of you have an independent thought of your own?
>
> obviously not.
>
Resistance is futile.
Ron O
This is sort of the normal progression of anti-evolution posters.
They tend to all start out with the bogus anti-evolution arguments,
but when they find out how bogus they are and how they have been lied
to repeatedly they either drop out or they go to just snipping from
the sidlines like Glenn, NashT, and even Ray. Pags keeps trying to
put up sometype of argument, but they probably don't even make sense
to him. It has just taken adman longer than most to realize that he
has no legitimate arguments. He can continue to rattle on like Pags
and Ray or he can basically give up like Glenn and NashT and settle
for whatever crumbs they get by poking from the sidelines.
Ron Okimoto
Dana Tweedy
Gah! Are you sure we can't make an exception this time?
DJT
VoiceOfReason
> Do any of you have an independent thought of your own?
>
> obviously not.
Hypocrisy at its finest.
gregwrld
>
> obviously not.
I have independently come to the
conclusion (based on evidence
you have supplied) that you are
an idiot.
And it's your own damn fault.
gregwrld
Nomen Publicus
> Do any of you have an independent thought of your own?
>
> obviously not.
>
Sorry, 2+2=4 everywhere. It's not open to opinion.
--
If we expect God to subscribe to one religion at the exclusion of all the
others, then we should expect damnation as a matter of chance. This should
give Christians pause when expounding their religious beliefs, but it does
not. -- Sam Harris
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
How is that being part of a Borg collective?
All-Seeing-I
> R Brown wrote:
> > "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message
> >news:c5df6e7e-c033-4f88...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> >> Do any of you have an independent thought of your own?
>
> >> obviously not.
>
> > You will be assimilated.
> > Resistance is futile.
>
> Gah! Are you sure we can't make an exception this time?
>
> DJT
The crew of the enterprise beat the Borg and were not assimilated
R Brown
They consulted ancient texts, not science, to do it. Of course, consulting
ancient texts is probably what allowed them to develop warp drive
technology. I'm pretty sure they completely eshewed the scientific method. I
bet if you look hard enough you can find such technologies mentioned in your
ancient texts. Maybe start with the Mayans?
Watch and see if this guy is one of those "ancient astronaut" (or is that
ancient astronut?) kooks. Any bets?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-Seeing-I
<allse...@usa.com>:
>Do any of you have an independent thought of your own?
>
>obviously not.
....says t.o's resident Channeler of (selected) Ancient
Texts...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
bpuharic
because it's a belief in authority rather than in independent thought
you yourself the other day said that testing ideas was worthless
compared to believing ancient texts
THATS a collective mentality
bpuharic
says the creationist with the viewpoint that everyone must follow what
folks wrote 2000 years ago.
Walter Bushell
<27ca2231-50f7-43c1...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Basically heresy is defined as "thinking for oneself."
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Walter Bushell
bpuharic <wf...@comcast.net> wrote:
No true true Christians interpret the Bible the same way. And they all
read it literally, except when inconvenient.
Walter Bushell
"R Brown" <bro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hey, IIRC. They infected the Borg with Windows thus bringing the Borg to
their knees, figuratively speaking. And then they released a whole slew
of Microsoft lawyers.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>In article
><27ca2231-50f7-43c1...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 29, 9:31!m, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> > Do any of you have an independent thought of your own?
>>
>> So, it's now down to nothing but starting threads consisting only of
>> insults?
>>
>> >
>> > obviously not.
>>
>> This is comical, coming from an anti-science twit that just stated in
>> another thread that he *choses* to deny scientific evidence and
>> rejects scientific theories because it's *easier to just say
>> "Goddidit!"*.
>>
>> In other words, you're even against "independant thought".
>>
>> You're pathetic.
>>
>> Boikat
>
>Basically heresy is defined as "thinking for oneself."
So none of the creationists can ever be accused of heresy.
--
Bob.
Michael Siemon
Why does heresy never succeed? If it succeeds, none dare call
it heresy...
John Wilkins
<mlsiemon-D09C74...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
Theology is written by the victors.
el cid
>
> obviously not.
I am not merely replete with independent thoughts,
but with independent spellings, and twists of phrase
so original and cryptic that the Greeks great one
could knot disentangle them without getting
whacky.
Michael Siemon
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Who always portray themselves as victimized...
John Wilkins
<mlsiemon-0DED7A...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
By Epicureans.
Prof Weird
VoiceOfReason
> In article
> <mlsiemon-0DED7A.21403719122...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
>
>
>
> Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > In article <201220091410361719%j...@wilkins.id.au>,
> > �John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <mlsiemon-D09C74.00512819122...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
> > > Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > > > In article <r93pi5p4qb19ul5bn36b5efepeddo51...@4ax.com>,
> > > > �Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:18:53 -0500, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
> > > > > enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> > > > > >In article
> > > > > > Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > >> On Nov 29, 9:31!m, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > Do any of you have an independent thought of your own?
>
> > > > > >> So, it's now down to nothing but starting threads consisting only of
> > > > > >> insults?
>
> > > > > >> > obviously not.
>
> > > > > >> This is comical, coming from an anti-science twit that just stated in
> > > > > >> another thread that he *choses* to deny scientific evidence and
> > > > > >> rejects scientific theories because it's *easier to just say
> > > > > >> "Goddidit!"*.
>
> > > > > >> In other words, you're even against "independant thought".
>
> > > > > >> You're pathetic.
>
> > > > > >> Boikat
>
> > > > > >Basically heresy is defined as "thinking for oneself."
>
> > > > > So none of the creationists can ever be accused of heresy.
>
> > > > Why does heresy never succeed? If it succeeds, none dare call
> > > > it heresy...
>
> > > Theology is written by the victors.
>
> > Who always portray themselves as victimized...
>
> By Epicureans.
Cannibals write theology?
Burkhard
of the clergy) and Basic Assembly Language? So a cannibal is someone who
writs theological treatise in BAl.
Paul J Gans
Much more so than history. We know almost nothing about the
old germanic, slavic, lithuanian, etc., religions.
They've been ground into dust by well-meaning clerics.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
heekster
Only Fine Young ones.
It's a Good Thing, but sometimes, It Drives Me Crazy.
Paul J Gans
The Jews won? Who'da thunk it?
:-)
Michael Siemon
The Jews don't (usually!) write _theology_. They write Midrash,
and commentary... and disputation...
[I'll come in again. :-)]
When Jews do theology, you get Spinoza.
Paul J Gans
Yes, and I happen to think that's great!
Anyway, I couldn't resist.