Evolution Is A Myth
Codeb...@bigsecret.com
a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
before our very eyes. We have not seen such a thing yet,
not even in their labs.
Evolution is a fraud.
Not-Easily-Duped
snex
non-sequitur. thanks for playing.
Vic Sagerquist
That's not even a half intelligent troll, dupe. You're losing your touch.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
shane
be almost taken as prima facie evidence that the very devolution has
actually happened.
Further point. - "We have not seen such a thing yet,
not even in their labs." - This is not a sentence that makes any sense -
unless you are actually saying that the devolved humans will have labs.
Yes we understand what you mean, but your inability to write plainly
does not bode well for your understanding of something as complex as
evolution.
--
shane
The truth will set you free.
Abner Hale
You're an idiot.
Eros
So, you would rather believe that an invisible, unknowable,
supernatural entity instantaneously "poofed" everything into existence,
out of nothing, 6000 years ago???
ROFLMAO! Not-Easily-Duped, my ass... you're just about as duped as you
can possibly get, Sparky!
EROS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Creationists: Transitional forms between idiots and morons.
Jenny6833A
Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> The same nature ...
No one claims "nature" did it, whatever "nature" may be.
>... which found it easy ...
No one has suggested "easy."
>... to evolve a monkey into
> a human ...
No evolutionist thinks humans evolved from monkeys.
>... would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey ...
Were you human before you devolved into whatever you are now?
> ... before our very eyes.
That fast? What evidence do you have to offer?
Vic Sagerquist
> Given that creationists generally claim that all (for example) dogs
> today are descended from a single pair of the dog kind at Noah's time
> (some admit there may have been three or so different dog kinds), why
> are we still in ignorance as to what this kind is, it should be so
> easy to breed back to it, and having one of the original kinds
> available would help on sorting out this whole 'kinds' business that
> is a constant embarrassment to the creationist world.
>
> Any creationists up to the challenge? I mean we are only talking 4000
> years of divergance, and that should be a breeze according to Not
> Easily Duped who says it would be easy to reverse a scenario that
> never even happened (humans do not come from monkeys - we share a
> common ancestor) covering tens of thousands of years of evolution. Or
> perhaps Not Easily Duped is mis-named.
>
Me wonders if Dupe has ever seen the movie "The Fly"...
JPG
I find it difficult to believe that any sane person should display such
ignorance. Even your average fundy would make more sense than this. It just has
to be a parody.
JPG
aa #1919
Michelle Malkin
"Woden" <wo...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9620EFCEE1FE...@69.28.186.121...
> Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote in news:1111459846.754104.270160
> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Are you back again, you phony baloney? Time to put my old
killfile back into action. You'll make such a nice juicy splash
landing in Lizzy B's innards again.
> >
> >
>
> And the really sad thing about this is that you are a product of the
> American educational system.
>
> --
> Woden
>
> "religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
> lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
> through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
>
shane
Given that creationists generally claim that all (for example) dogs
today are descended from a single pair of the dog kind at Noah's time
(some admit there may have been three or so different dog kinds), why
are we still in ignorance as to what this kind is, it should be so easy
to breed back to it, and having one of the original kinds available
would help on sorting out this whole 'kinds' business that is a constant
embarrassment to the creationist world.
Any creationists up to the challenge? I mean we are only talking 4000
years of divergance, and that should be a breeze according to Not Easily
Duped who says it would be easy to reverse a scenario that never even
happened (humans do not come from monkeys - we share a common ancestor)
covering tens of thousands of years of evolution. Or perhaps Not Easily
Duped is mis-named.
--
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
<Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1111459846.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
> a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
> before our very eyes. We have not seen such a thing yet,
I see it when I read your post.
--
rb #2187
Richard Forrest
In spite of years of research, the Discovery Institute has been unable
to create a woman from the rib of a man.
Creationism is a fraud.
RF
johac
Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
What a dumb-bot!
>
> Not-Easily-Duped
I appears that you were.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion..."
Joel Barlow, Treaty of Tripoli (1796)
Secular Fundamentalist
--
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N.
aa #2208
rj
news:1111469775.6...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
What is most interesting is the fact that Xtians pick and choose what they
want to believe. Science is great as long as it supports their views.
Science comes out and disproves one of their allegations then they either
ignore it or attack it but never embrace it.
Fundies never cease to amaze me with their lies and broken logic. They
will admit that god made evolution, but they will reject it none the less.
I can't wait for the next batch of JWs. I am ready for them. I wish it
was then now. Next will be their claim that God made the fossils to throw
Darwin off or some similarly ridiculous claim. It is as if I am back in
grade school debating electicity and electronics to kids that think that
turning up the house thermostat to 99 will heat the house quicker.
rj
Woden
> The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
And the really sad thing about this is that you are a product of the
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
> The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
> a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
> before our very eyes. We have not seen such a thing yet,
> not even in their labs.
Reading your posting, we are seeing it right now.
--
Regards
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
Gary Bohn
news:6dt041da160ks46ea...@4ax.com:
> On 22 Mar 2005 18:36:20 GMT, Gary Bohn
> <gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
>>shane <remarcs...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in
>>news:PGM%d.271$FR3....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au:
>>It also doesn't bode well for his ability to understand anything as
>>complex as putting on underwear.
>
> Hey, this is Hopelessly Duped we're talking about here. He's
> already demonstrated his inabilities. Repeatedly. If you cut
> off his head and sutured an eggplant to the stump, I doubt
> even he would notice.
>
>
Ah, sure he would. His hat wouldn't fit any more.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah, EAC Department of Oxygen
Deprivation
Responsible for brain damage everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
The Last Conformist
Clearly, then, someone has put some considerable effort into duping you.
Dave
> The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey
> into a human would find easier to de-volve a human being
> into a monkey before our very eyes.
>
You sound like an ignorant 12 year old. Were you home-schooled?
Gary Bohn
> Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
It also doesn't bode well for his ability to understand anything as
complex as putting on underwear.
--
Nivlem
<gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
>shane <remarcs...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in
>news:PGM%d.271$FR3....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au:
>
>> Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>>> The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
>>> a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
>>> before our very eyes. We have not seen such a thing yet,
>>> not even in their labs.
>>>
>>> Evolution is a fraud.
>>>
>>> Not-Easily-Duped
>>>
>> Although the irony of the situation is that your strawman argument may
>> be almost taken as prima facie evidence that the very devolution has
>> actually happened.
>>
>> Further point. - "We have not seen such a thing yet,
>> not even in their labs." - This is not a sentence that makes any sense
>> - unless you are actually saying that the devolved humans will have
>> labs. Yes we understand what you mean, but your inability to write
>> plainly does not bode well for your understanding of something as
>> complex as evolution.
>>
>
>It also doesn't bode well for his ability to understand anything as
>complex as putting on underwear.
Hey, this is Hopelessly Duped we're talking about here. He's
Vulgaris Prime
Wow... that makes no friggin' sense whatsoever. This is a first - I'm
practically rendered speechless by the sheer stupidity of that
statement. What, exactly, says that evolution would HAVE to not only
be an outside omni-force, but answer directly to your whims?
I pity you.
---
In nomine Homeris, et Bartis, et Spiritu Lisii, I shall not submit.
Frank J
Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
> a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
> before our very eyes.
Easier, possibly, but not "before our very eyes."
> We have not seen such a thing yet,
> not even in their labs.
>
> Evolution is a fraud.
>
> Not-Easily-Duped
OK, now what is your alternative? Is it one of the mutually
contradictory creationist accounts that have less going for them than
the one that you are incredulous about? Or have you come up with
something original?
Al
strength slickness.
Budikka666
> The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
> a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
> not even in their labs.
>
> Evolution is a fraud.
>
> Not-Easily-Duped
It's kinda early to call it yet, but I'd say that what we have here is
the leading candidate for Clueless Asshole of the Year.
Budikka
Dana Tweedy
<er...@swva.net> wrote in message
news:1111500888.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>> The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
>> a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
>> before our very eyes. We have not seen such a thing yet,
>> not even in their labs.
>>
>> Evolution is a fraud.
>>
>> Not-Easily-Duped
> stupider?
I propose we call it a "Dupie".
DJT
Ash
> The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
> a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
> before our very eyes. We have not seen such a thing yet,
> not even in their labs.
>
> Evolution is a fraud.
>
> Not-Easily-Duped
>
for my newsreader. I feel 90% sure that this is satire, but there is
just a nagging doubt, a voice in hte back of my mind saying "some people
really are this dumb"
Gary Bohn
news:1111479820.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
My wife loves ribs. If she could she would eat them all he time. My wife
loves me and I am a man. My wife particularily loves it(and me) when I
make ribs on the BBQ. Therefore my wife was made from a man's rib.
stew dean
Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
> a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
> before our very eyes. We have not seen such a thing yet,
> not even in their labs.
Er - why? Seeing biological evolution in a lab on the scale you're
talking about would require a big lab (about the size of a planet) and
a good amount of time (a few million years for a start).
> Evolution is a fraud.
>
> Not-Easily-Duped
Not easily educated as well by the looks of it.
Stew Dean
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
> a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
> before our very eyes. We have not seen such a thing yet,
> not even in their labs.
>
>
> Not-Easily-Duped
What do you mean by "de-volve"?
Ignoring your anthropomorphizing for the moment, why would it be easier
for nature to evolve from species X to Y, rather than Y to X?
Why would you expect a 20 million year process to happen in the lab?
Do you *really think that organisms, and not species, evolve?
Do you have a native tongue?
Do you use "The Little Golden Book of God" to help you understand
Genesis?
Kermit
RHertz
> a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
> before our very eyes. We have not seen such a thing yet,
> not even in their labs.
>
> Evolution is a fraud.
>
> Not-Easily-Duped
>
Everybody else has chimed in, so I guess I will too...
"Not easily duped", eh? If that is so, ask yourself when you go to church,
(I am assuming you go to church) why they want so much money and why they
demand such loyalty? Have you ever asked yourself if THEY are the ones
doing the "duping".
At least Evolution doesn't ask you to tithe 10% of your income.
bg1...@apexmail.com
> The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
> a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
> before our very eyes. We have not seen such a thing yet,
> not even in their labs.
>
> Evolution is a fraud.
>
> Not-Easily-Duped
To Mr. "Not Easily Educated":
Nothing "devolves". If humans changed into monkeys again, it
would still be evolution. But since you didn't see it, you
think (more accurately, you don't think) it didn't happen.
Xian creationist: "I didn't see it, so it didn't happen."
Sharia islamist: "Four honorable muslims didn't see the rape,
so it didn't happen. Kill her for adultery."
And you wonder why atheists view you as having the same
ignorant mentalities.
Bob Dog
wilc...@gmail.com
Abner Hale wrote:
> Codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> > The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
> > a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
> > before our very eyes. We have not seen such a thing yet,
> > not even in their labs.
> >
> > Evolution is a fraud.
> >
> > Not-Easily-Duped
>
Craig T
> We have not seen such a thing yet
Avoiding all the possible cheap shots, what about the hobbit? If flores
man is a new species (as opposed to a microcephalic dwarf as some have
proposed) it reminds us that evolution goes with what works best at the
time, rather than some march toward a goal. Men can evolve into smaller
brained men, crustaceans can evolve into parasites, lungs can become
swim bladders. Calling one adaptation evolution and another "Devo"
is just a human bias.
I loved Kurt Vonnegut's "Galapagos", where the last surviving
humans are stranded on the Galapagos Islands and evolve into seal-like
creatures. Like other species, we only will stay in this form for as
long as our adaptations meet the needs of our niche. Flores man seems
to have been painted into a corner where big brains weren't as
helpful as just needing less food.
As for Codebreaker, here's the latest from the Bible code: If you
read the book of John backwards, it says "I buried Paul".
TCS
>Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>> The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
>> a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
>> before our very eyes. We have not seen such a thing yet,
>> not even in their labs.
>>
>> Evolution is a fraud.
>>
>> Not-Easily-Duped
>stupider?
preschool religious conditioning.
Ash
I think the question should be "were you schooled"
gpa...@bayou.com
Abner Hale wrote:
> Codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> > The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
> > a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
> > not even in their labs.
> >
> > Evolution is a fraud.
> >
> > Not-Easily-Duped
>
May be, but look at the way he has nurtured and concretize his idiotsy
until he has achieved equality with this world's master idiots. In my
opinion, he does not have to take second place to any of this world's
most accomplished idiots. It may be that all idiots are born equal, but
some strive to develop that seed of idiotsy with which they were
endowed, and cultivate it until they become blooming idiots.
Andy Groves
Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
> a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
...and then teach them to post to talk.origins. netTV accounts
optional.
Andy
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Codeb...@bigsecret.com:
>The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
>a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
>before our very eyes.
Your post as evidence: Q.E.D.
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Gary Bohn
news:LYKdnaWdffH...@megapath.net:
> In our last episode <d1ouf3$n2o$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, Ash pirouetted
> gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
> Easily-Duped really *is this dumb...
>
You just can't make this shit up.
Iain
Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
> a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
> before our very eyes.
No it wouldn't, because our present condition lends itself to survival
in our present environment and circumstances.
> We have not seen such a thing yet,
> not even in their labs.
See above.
~Iain
nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com
Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
> a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
start devovling back to 'monkey grade'. You wouldn't be able to
function in human society, infact, you'd probably be destroyed
purposefully.
ire...@gmail.com
1) people did not evolve from "monkeys" We and monkeys evolved from
the same ancestors.
2) you came from your grandfather. Can you change back into your
grandfather?
satyr
>The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
>a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
If one devolved into you, a monkey should be a piece of cake.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
Mark K. Bilbo
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
> "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in
> news:LYKdnaWdffH...@megapath.net:
>
>> In our last episode <d1ouf3$n2o$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, Ash pirouetted
>> gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
>>
>>> Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>>>> The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into a human
>>>> would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey before our
>>>> very eyes. We have not seen such a thing yet, not even in their labs.
>>>>
>>>> Evolution is a fraud.
>>>>
>>>> Not-Easily-Duped
>>>>
>>> It's at times like this I wish I could get some sort of parody checker
>>> for my newsreader. I feel 90% sure that this is satire, but there is
>>> just a nagging doubt, a voice in hte back of my mind saying "some
>>> people really are this dumb"
>>
>> Easily-Duped really *is this dumb...
>>
>>
> You just can't make this shit up.
Parody has become superfluous...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Group website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
Ash
> Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>
>>The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
>>a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
>>before our very eyes. We have not seen such a thing yet,
>>not even in their labs.
>>
>>Evolution is a fraud.
>>
>>Not-Easily-Duped
>
>
>
>
I don't think it requires much effort
Robert Weldon
> a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
> before our very eyes. We have not seen such a thing yet,
> not even in their labs.
>
> Evolution is a fraud.
>
> Not-Easily-Duped
"they tell us that we lost our tails
evolving up from little snails
i say it's all just wind in sails
are we not men? we are DEVO!"
Pithecanthropus Erectus
That's a pretty impressive statement coming from someone that has waded
through the "teachings" of Kent Hovind and come out grinning.
But it is kinda early to tell. Mc..... has been posting a few of his
Johanssen inanities recently and could be building to another stupid bet.
Richard Smol
Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
> a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
> before our very eyes. We have not seen such a thing yet,
> not even in their labs.
>
> Evolution is a fraud.
Do you really expect anyone to take this seriously?
RS
Mark K. Bilbo
gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
> Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
Easily-Duped really *is this dumb...
--
er...@swva.net
> The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
> a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
> before our very eyes. We have not seen such a thing yet,
> not even in their labs.
>
> Evolution is a fraud.
>
> Not-Easily-Duped
Ian Braidwood
Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
> a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
> before our very eyes. We have not seen such a thing yet,
> not even in their labs.
>
> Evolution is a fraud.
>
> Not-Easily-Duped
You signature is wrong, it should read Duped Already.
(-: Ian :-)
Eric Root
housebroken?"
Jez
> The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
> a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
> not even in their labs.
Yes we have ! I just read the lines above, which were obviously typed by
a de-volved human.
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
Virgil
Nivlem <ml...@svn.net> wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2005 18:36:20 GMT, Gary Bohn
> <gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
> >shane <remarcs...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in
> >news:PGM%d.271$FR3....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au:
> >
> >> Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> >>> The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
> >>> a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
> >>> before our very eyes. We have not seen such a thing yet,
> >>> not even in their labs.
> >>>
> >>> Evolution is a fraud.
> >>>
> >>> Not-Easily-Duped
> >>>
> >> Although the irony of the situation is that your strawman argument may
> >> be almost taken as prima facie evidence that the very devolution has
> >> actually happened.
> >>
> >> Further point. - "We have not seen such a thing yet,
> >> not even in their labs." - This is not a sentence that makes any sense
> >> - unless you are actually saying that the devolved humans will have
> >> labs. Yes we understand what you mean, but your inability to write
> >> plainly does not bode well for your understanding of something as
> >> complex as evolution.
> >>
> >
> >It also doesn't bode well for his ability to understand anything as
> >complex as putting on underwear.
>
> Hey, this is Hopelessly Duped we're talking about here. He's
> already demonstrated his inabilities. Repeatedly. If you cut
> off his head and sutured an eggplant to the stump, I doubt
> even he would notice.
Maybe then he could qualify for his GED.
MooJoo
Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
> a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
> before our very eyes. We have not seen such a thing yet,
> not even in their labs.
>
> Evolution is a fraud.
>
> Not-Easily-Duped
Damn! <slaps forehead in amazement>.
100 years of scientific research into the theory of evolution laid to
waste is just a few well chosen words by one of mankind's most
brilliant, yet strangely unknown, minds.
To paraphrase a line from a movie I saw once: There you have it folks.
Authentic, fundamentalist gibberish.
Richard Forrest
Gary Bohn wrote:
> "Richard Forrest" <ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote in
> news:1111479820.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> >> The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
> >> a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
> >> before our very eyes. We have not seen such a thing yet,
> >> not even in their labs.
> >>
> >> Evolution is a fraud.
> >>
> >> Not-Easily-Duped
> >
unable
> > to create a woman from the rib of a man.
> >
> > Creationism is a fraud.
> >
> >
> > RF
> >
> >
>
> My wife loves ribs. If she could she would eat them all he time. My
wife
> loves me and I am a man. My wife particularily loves it(and me) when
I
> make ribs on the BBQ. Therefore my wife was made from a man's rib.
>
> --
> apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah, EAC Department of Oxygen
> Deprivation
>
> Responsible for brain damage everywhere!
>
> Gary Bohn
>
> Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
> emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
I tried to make someone by offering them a rib. It didn't work. Perhaps
I need to improve my chat-up technique.
RF
cub...@aol.com
Richard Forrest
Surely that would seduce any woman? Who could resist?
Ah well, it's back to: "If I told you you had a beautiful body would
you hold it against me."
RF
Robibnikoff
"Richard Forrest" <ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1111564705....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
snip
>
> I tried to make someone by offering them a rib. It didn't work. Perhaps
> I need to improve my chat-up technique.
My husband makes some great ribs, but the only thing I've seen them become
is eaten.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Sam
> Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>
>>The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
>>a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
>>before our very eyes. We have not seen such a thing yet,
>>not even in their labs.
>>
>>Evolution is a fraud.
>>
>>Not-Easily-Duped
>
evolution is not an active process such as you have been told, it is the
description of a goings-on scientifically observed. like the color red,
which is just what we call a certain range of light wavelengths.
--
Sam
Codeb...@bigsecret.com
Why not?
>
> RS
TCS
> Why not?
It's idiotic.
And if you're asking about de-evolution, you need look no further than your
local church at the braying idiots, babbling to an imaginary god.
Without civilization, you would never had survived childhood, being too stupid
to make it on your own. Unfortuneately, you have a good chance to pass your
genes along and are a perfect example of de-evolution.
Ash
Pithecanthropus Erectus
> "Richard Forrest" <ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
> news:1111564705....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> snip
>
>>I tried to make someone by offering them a rib. It didn't work. Perhaps
>>I need to improve my chat-up technique.
>
>
> My husband makes some great ribs, but the only thing I've seen them become
> is eaten.
Listen, babe, you are what you eat.
--
"God Forbid we should actually test anything."
Creationism
"The curses of Deuteronomy 28 will plague America until we return to God
(Ps 9:17). Wealth and military might are not substitutes for God-given
character and blessing. Freedom comes, not from democracy, but Jesus
Christ. The outline below lists our wars & keys to victory. May God lead
us in the strategic and tactical prayers that are required!"
Capitol Hill Action Network, 2005
Iain
Blazing Saddles?
~Iain
goozlefotz
circumstances, the process could go either way.
Dave
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "goozlefotz" <dgra...@ieee.org>:
>How do you know that devolution has not occurred? Depending on the
>circumstances, the process could go either way.
No matter which way it occurs (assuming you're thinking of
"more complex" vs. "less complex"), the correct term is
"evolution". Strictly speaking (and IMHO), "devolution"
would require an exact retracing of the steps along a
particular evolutionary path *at the genetic level*; as I'm
sure you realize, the odds against this really *are* huge.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
goozlefotz
were in the jungle and all the food was in the tops of the trees, the
monkey would be better adapted to survive. I consider your response to
be somewhere between hair-splitting and question-begging.
Dave
Gary Bohn
news:3ad886F...@individual.net:
> "Richard Forrest" <ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
> news:1111564705....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> snip
>>
>> I tried to make someone by offering them a rib. It didn't work.
>> Perhaps I need to improve my chat-up technique.
>
> My husband makes some great ribs, but the only thing I've seen them
> become is eaten.
And how did you reward your husband for cooking up those ribs? Hmmm?
Gary Bohn
<snip>
>
> Surely that would seduce any woman? Who could resist?
> Ah well, it's back to: "If I told you you had a beautiful body would
> you hold it against me."
>
> RF
>
>
Yup, an oldie but a goodie. That one works every time. It never fails to
cause bruising in tender places.
DrMatix
Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
Because you are not attacking evolution. You are attacking your
misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution is not directed. Populations
evolve to fit the environment. There is not such thing as de-volve. What
would de-volve even mean? To become less adapted to the environment?
You misunderstand evolution. Then you attack your misunderstanding. No
one is going to take your straw man argument seriously.
DrMatix
Gary Bohn <gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
> "Richard Forrest" <ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote in
> news:1111479820.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> >> The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
> >> a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
> >> before our very eyes. We have not seen such a thing yet,
> >> not even in their labs.
> >>
> >> Evolution is a fraud.
> >>
> >> Not-Easily-Duped
> >
> > In spite of years of research, the Discovery Institute has been unable
> > to create a woman from the rib of a man.
> >
> > Creationism is a fraud.
> >
> >
> > RF
> >
> >
>
> My wife loves ribs. If she could she would eat them all he time. My wife
> loves me and I am a man. My wife particularily loves it(and me) when I
> make ribs on the BBQ. Therefore my wife was made from a man's rib.
You married a cannibal!
Sam
>>>Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>The same nature which found it easy to evolve a monkey into
>>>>a human would find easier to de-volve a human being into a monkey
>>>>before our very eyes. We have not seen such a thing yet,
>>>>not even in their labs.
>>>>
what is an evolution 'lab'?
--
Sam
wcb
Many monkeys DO live in the trees and survive very
well where man has a hard time, like many parts
of the Amazon, where food is sometimes hard to find.
Unless you are a leaf eating howler monkey.
Some smaller monkeys do well eating insects as a large
part of their diet. Different ecological niches.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "goozlefotz" <dgra...@ieee.org>:
>Well, I made that word up.
Not really; it's been around quite a while.
> The idea is that if a human and a monkey
>were in the jungle and all the food was in the tops of the trees, the
>monkey would be better adapted to survive.
How about if the human ate the monkey? Seriously, evolution
is about differential reproductive success in a given
environment. As such, it only really applies within species,
not between them. Given your scenario, it's quite possible
that the human group would become extinct.
> I consider your response to
>be somewhere between hair-splitting and question-begging.
Consider it whatever you wish; it's pretty much the standard
response whenever the subject comes up. But since the idea
of "devolution" recurs frequently in these discussions, it's
always best to make sure that the concept isn't
misunderstood.
Mark VandeWettering
Because it reflects your personal intellectual shortcomings, not
shortcomings of the theory of evolution.
Mark
>> RS
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Sam <srca...@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com>:
I believe the main one is generally referred to as "Earth".
Gary Bohn
evileniusabroad
Quality control. IQs bigger than their shoe size. Education.
information.
Not being an oxgen starved moron with strong arms (you must have
pulled yourself out of the bucket somehow), etc, etc, etc.
Stanley Friesen
>How do you know that devolution has not occurred?
Because there is no such thing. Evolution has *no* *intrinsic*
*direction*, so there is no "backwards", ergo "devolution" is nonsense.
> Depending on the
>circumstances, the process could go either way.
>
Yes, and it is called evolution "both" ways (there are actually many
directions, not just two).
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Stanley Friesen
>Well, I made that word up.
You did? Then how has it appeared in many movies and other media
sources?
> The idea is that if a human and a monkey
>were in the jungle and all the food was in the tops of the trees, the
>monkey would be better adapted to survive.
Well, of course. But so what? Scientists do *not* assume that humans
are the ultimate in evolution.
goozlefotz
death without contributing anything of your own. I'll remember that.
Dave
Steve Schaffner
> Ah! I see that your role on this board is to nit-pick everyone else to
> death without contributing anything of your own. I'll remember that.
Who are you replying to? Your description could fit any number of
people.
--
Steve Schaffner s...@broad.mit.edu
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "goozlefotz" <dgra...@ieee.org>:
>Ah! I see that your role on this board is to nit-pick everyone else to
>death without contributing anything of your own. I'll remember that.
Please include enough of the post to which you're
responding, properly attributed, so that anyone reading your
post will know who and what you responded to. Assuming your
post was in response to Stanley's clarification of your
misconception, it sounded perfectly reasonable to me. Of
course, IIRC you also accused me of "nit-picking" when I
pointed out exactly the same thing (that there's no such
thing as "devolution"; that evolution is essentially a
one-way process) a week or so ago, with reasons and (again,
IIRC) examples. If you're going to discuss any topic in
science, it helps tremendously if you use terminology that
everyone understands.
shane
Without criticism there is no impetus for improvement. So if any of us
wish to limit the criticism, we need to improve the quality of our posts.
--
shane
The truth will set you free.
goozlefotz
fits you just as well.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "goozlefotz" <dgra...@ieee.org>:
>Yes, Bob. Whatever you say, Bob. I was responding to Stanley, but it
>fits you just as well.
Still don't know how to include context and attributions, or
how to conduct a rational conversation? Pity; some people
seem incapable of learning, although I would have assumed
better from an IEEE member. HANL.
goozlefotz
Still don't know how to include context and attributions, or
how to conduct a rational conversation? Pity; some people
seem incapable of learning, although I would have assumed
better from an IEEE member. HANL.
For the record, I am a Life Senior Member of the IEEE. That and a buck
and a half will get you a cup of coffee.
Dave
AC
But apparently not a newsreader that can post in anything resembling the
accepted standard.
goozlefotz
But apparently not a newsreader that can post in anything resembling
the
accepted standard.
-----------------
Accepted by who? On what board? Another nit-picker......
AC
The convention on Usenet for well over a decade is the use of the ">" when
quoting, as you can see with this message. The adoption of a convention, as
I'm sure a former member of IEEE can well agree, is useful in ease of
communication.
Why would you wish to post in a form that is so wildly different?
goozlefotz
>The convention on Usenet for well over a decade is the use of the ">"
when
>quoting, as you can see with this message. The adoption of a
convention, as
>I'm sure a former member of IEEE can well agree, is useful in ease of
>communication.
>
>Why would you wish to post in a form that is so wildly different?
--
Is THAT what you are fussing about? OK, I'll do that.
Dave
ps: Not former member. I was going to quit when I retired, but was
elected a "Life Senior Member" which mostly means that I don't have to
pay the high dues anymore. I did quit the American Physical Society to
avoid the dues. DG
goozlefotz
>Without criticism there is no impetus for improvement. So if any of us
>wish to limit the criticism, we need to improve the quality of our
posts.
(Note ">"s)
Nitpicking is the antithesis of valid criticism. It introduces
irrelevancies as a substitute for communication. Some folks are so
enamored with it that they think they are contributing when they do it.
Do I communicate my ideas? If so, then complaining about some
peripheral issue (say, spelling) is nitpicking.
Dave
Greg G.
goozlefotz wrote:
> shane:
> >Without criticism there is no impetus for improvement. So if any of
us
>
> >wish to limit the criticism, we need to improve the quality of our
> posts.
>
> (Note ">"s)
>
unforgivable. No soup for you! 8o)
--
Greg G.
A family of Bournes live along a highway, each house exactly one mile
apart. If you drive by at 60 mph, there's one Bourne every minute.
shane
I went back and re-read the lead up posts to your original nit-picking
comment. As the nit-pick was not to do with spelling, or even a
peripheral issue, it is strange that you would pick them as examples, or
perhaps i am nit-picking. ISTM that they were trying to clarify your
position, and sometimes it requires clarifications of even simple
spelling mistakes to do so. For example i read in another thread
yesterday a request to clarify if a poster meant "of" instead of "or" as
both would have been grammatically correct, but the sense of what was
being presented changed radically. To the person who made the original
post the question was probably nit-picking because they knew what they
meant. And just as a personal aside, i prefer my posts to be as nit-free
as possible, and what is a peripheral issue to me may be the central
issue to someone else.
goozlefotz
goozlefotz wrote:
> shane:
> posts.
> (Note ">"s)
> Dave
I don't want to nit-pick about whether or not you were nit-picking....
Originally, I said something about "devolution" and was lectured about
evolution going either way, etc. then I said "I made that up" and was
lectured about the history of the word "devolution".
Note that now I use "> " vice ">". TaDaaaa
Dave G
heyref
There *are* standards. Please refer to the news.* hierarchy for
specifics, particularly news.newusers.
--
H. Brent Howatt | The deluded are always filled with absolutes
hey...@die.spammers.rootshell.be| The rest of us have to live with ambiguity
PGP keys by email or keyserver | _Aristoi_ Walter Jon Williams