Why No Missing Links Ever Found?

[BroilJAB]

Darwin said there would be millions of Missing
Links found which would prove his Evolutionism.
Now 188 years later, NONE ever have been found.

WWW.CONSERVAPEDIA.COM/

[linuxgal]

The irony is lost on the knuckledraggers who keep asserting that.

--
Because I am an 1337 h4x0r and don't want to use anything that you n00bs
might be able to understand.

[weheard...@aol.com]

What about Manning in Brazil?

[Syd M.]

On Sep 30, 4:58 pm, BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Darwin said there would be millions of Missing
> Links found which would prove his Evolutionism.
> Now 188 years later, NONE ever have been found.
>
>

Why does BroilJab refuse to stop lying?

[Syd M.]

What about him?
Do you have to be in America to critique it?

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

Besides, he's wrong. We have millions of missing links between apes and
humans: they're called "creationists".

[Syd M.]

Totally.

[Budikka666]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Budikka

[Don Martin]

Why do 14-year-olds refuse to quit masturbating?

--

aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[Mike Painter]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:35:10 +0000 (UTC), Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:25:10 -0700, Syd M. wrote:
>
>> On Sep 30, 4:58 pm, BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>>> Darwin said there would be millions of Missing Links found which would
>>> prove his Evolutionism.
>>> Now 188 years later, NONE ever have been found.
>>>

That's because every time one is found it is not missing any longer
and the creationists have two more to crow about.

>>>
>>>
>> Why does BroilJab refuse to stop lying?
>
>Besides, he's wrong. We have millions of missing links between apes and
>humans: they're called "creationists".

Sadly he is right. I wish those creationists were missing but they are
not.

[Andrew]

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:k4amsu$avg$1...@dont-email.me...
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>
> Budikka

Let me ask you this question. Can you cite ~any~ fossil
that is acknowledged to be a transitional, *where fantasy
is not required* to make the case that it IS transitional??

If not, then this is positive evidence that your theory is
based upon ---> fantasy.

> Budikka

Thanks again, Budikka!



Andrew

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <CP2dndgvL_wB3vTN...@earthlink.com>,

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:k4amsu$avg$1...@dont-email.me...
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
> >
> > Budikka
>
> Let me ask you this question. Can you cite ~any~ fossil
> that is acknowledged to be a transitional, *where fantasy
> is not required* to make the case that it IS transitional??

EVERY fossil is transitional, unless it's at the end of a branch.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[linuxgal]

Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <CP2dndgvL_wB3vTN...@earthlink.com>,
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:k4amsu$avg$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>>>
>>> Budikka
>>
>> Let me ask you this question. Can you cite ~any~ fossil
>> that is acknowledged to be a transitional, *where fantasy
>> is not required* to make the case that it IS transitional??
>
> EVERY fossil is transitional, unless it's at the end of a branch.
>

Also, only a small fraction of dead critters end up as fossils.

[Andrew]

"linuxgal" wrote in message news:cIudne8x9qpy5PTN...@giganews.com...
> Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> "Andrew" wrote:

>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>>>>
>>>> Budikka
>>>
>>> Let me ask you this question. Can you cite ~any~ fossil
>>> that is acknowledged to be a transitional, *where fantasy
>>> is not required* to make the case that it IS transitional??
>>
>> EVERY fossil is transitional, unless it's at the end of a branch.
>>
> Also, only a small fraction of dead critters end up as fossils.

And most of the fossils that we find today are testimony
of the great deluge. Thus also of the judgment to come.

[Syd M.]

On Sep 30, 9:35 pm, Don Martin <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:25:10 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M."
>

> <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 30, 4:58 pm, BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> >> Darwin said there would be millions of Missing
> >> Links found which would prove his Evolutionism.
> >> Now 188 years later, NONE ever have been found.
>
> >Why does BroilJab refuse to stop lying?
>
> Why do 14-year-olds refuse to quit masturbating?
>
>

But what pleasure can he get from that...
Oh, wait...

[Syd M.]

On Oct 1, 3:17 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k4amsu$avg$1...@dont-email.me...

> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>
> > Budikka
>
> Let me ask you this question. Can you cite ~any~ fossil
> that is acknowledged to be a transitional, *where fantasy
> is not required* to make the case that it IS transitional??
>
> If not, then this is positive evidence that your theory is
> based upon ---> fantasy.
>
>

Still wrong, no matter how hard you whine, Andrew.

[Syd M.]

On Oct 1, 10:25 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "linuxgal" wrote in messagenews:cIudne8x9qpy5PTN...@giganews.com...

Anything to deny real facts, huh, Andrew?

[Devils Advocaat]

On 1 Oct, 15:25, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "linuxgal" wrote in messagenews:cIudne8x9qpy5PTN...@giganews.com...

If such a deluge had occurred there would be billions of fossils.

You'd better get off to the ER of your local hospital Andrew.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <XPydnecvUvt0OvTN...@earthlink.com>,

You've been PROVEN wrong on this fantasy probably hundreds of times over
the years and yet you've proven completely incapable of absorbing fact.

[John Locke]

On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 00:19:28 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:k4amsu$avg$1...@dont-email.me...
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>>
>> Budikka
>
>Let me ask you this question. Can you cite ~any~ fossil
>that is acknowledged to be a transitional, *where fantasy
>is not required* to make the case that it IS transitional??
>
>If not, then this is positive evidence that your theory is
>based upon ---> fantasy.
>

Have you been living under a rock ? I suggest you start with
Synapsid Reptiles to Mammals.

[Andrew]

"Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1d6874ff-47b8-42c3...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

-
- Still wrong, no matter how hard you whine, Andrew.

Can't name one? Then this is evidence that your theory
is based on fantasy.

[Andrew]

"Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:79f86003-8703-420d...@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

-
- Anything to deny real facts, huh, Andrew?

I never denied a fossil, unless it was fraudulent.

[Uirgil]

In article <CP2dndgvL_wB3vTN...@earthlink.com>,
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> Let me ask you this question. Can you cite ~any~ fossil
> that is acknowledged to be a transitional, *where fantasy
> is not required* to make the case that it IS transitional??

Can you name any fossil species which no longer exists in its
fossilized form and say definitely *where fantasy is not required* that
it is NOT a transitional form?

Maybe in another couple of centuries the tree of life will be well
enough known to decide one way or another, but not yet.

[Ralph]

How many fossils do you think are fraudulent, Andrew?

[Andrew]

"Ralph" wrote in message news:JtudnSgew6sTsfbN...@giganews.com...
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Syd M." wrote:
>> "Andrew" wrote:

>>> "linuxgal" wrote:
>>>> Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>>>>>>> Budikka
>>>>>> Let me ask you this question. Can you cite ~any~ fossil
>>>>>> that is acknowledged to be a transitional, *where fantasy
>>>>>> is not required* to make the case that it IS transitional??
>>>>> EVERY fossil is transitional, unless it's at the end of a branch.
>>>> Also, only a small fraction of dead critters end up as fossils.
>>> And most of the fossils that we find today are testimony
>>> of the great deluge. Thus also of the judgment to come.
>> -
>> - Anything to deny real facts, huh, Andrew?
>>
>> I never denied a fossil, unless it was fraudulent.
>>
> How many fossils do you think are fraudulent, Andrew?

Archaeoraptor, Piltdown and a host of others.

Most fossils are not fake, but are a testimony
of the destruction that came upon the ancient
world, and point to the destruction that is to
come.

Have a nice day, Ralph.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <NoGdndGPep396vbN...@earthlink.com>,

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> "Ralph" wrote in message news:JtudnSgew6sTsfbN...@giganews.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> "Syd M." wrote:
> >> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>> "linuxgal" wrote:
> >>>> Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> >>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >>>>>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
> >>>>>>> Budikka
> >>>>>> Let me ask you this question. Can you cite ~any~ fossil
> >>>>>> that is acknowledged to be a transitional, *where fantasy
> >>>>>> is not required* to make the case that it IS transitional??
> >>>>> EVERY fossil is transitional, unless it's at the end of a branch.
> >>>> Also, only a small fraction of dead critters end up as fossils.
> >>> And most of the fossils that we find today are testimony
> >>> of the great deluge. Thus also of the judgment to come.
> >> -
> >> - Anything to deny real facts, huh, Andrew?
> >>
> >> I never denied a fossil, unless it was fraudulent.
> >>
> > How many fossils do you think are fraudulent, Andrew?
>
> Archaeoraptor, Piltdown and a host of others.

Neither of which was a fraud perpetrated by scientists.

So you lose again.

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 16:24:52 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>"Ralph" wrote in message news:JtudnSgew6sTsfbN...@giganews.com...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> "Syd M." wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> "linuxgal" wrote:
>>>>> Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>>>>>>>> Budikka
>>>>>>> Let me ask you this question. Can you cite ~any~ fossil
>>>>>>> that is acknowledged to be a transitional, *where fantasy
>>>>>>> is not required* to make the case that it IS transitional??
>>>>>> EVERY fossil is transitional, unless it's at the end of a branch.
>>>>> Also, only a small fraction of dead critters end up as fossils.
>>>> And most of the fossils that we find today are testimony
>>>> of the great deluge. Thus also of the judgment to come.
>>> -
>>> - Anything to deny real facts, huh, Andrew?
>>>
>>> I never denied a fossil, unless it was fraudulent.
>>>
>> How many fossils do you think are fraudulent, Andrew?
>
>Archaeoraptor, Piltdown and a host of others.

Not one of those erroneous claims were discovered by creationists. Why
is that?

>Most fossils are not fake, but are a testimony
>of the destruction that came upon the ancient
>world, and point to the destruction that is to
>come.

There is overwhelming evidence that Noah's Flood never happened.

[Ralph]

Sorry Andrew, you have only named two. Now how many fossils do you think
there are?
Three? There are millions of fossils and you can only name three frauds?
This reminds me of
the old creationist canard about erroneous radiometric dates, then they
name a few, most of which they
were complicit in the duplicity of the error. So, with the very few
'errors' used by creationists, they fail to
mention the estimated 110,000 radiometric datings that have been
performed in laboratories over the
world.

You have a nice day god-bot.

[Ralph]

On 10/1/2012 7:55 PM, Andrew wrote:

> "Syd M."<pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1d6874ff-47b8-42c3...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

> On Oct 1, 3:17 am, "Andrew"<andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:

>> "Budikka666" wrote inmessagenews:k4amsu$avg$1...@dont-email.me...

>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>>> Budikka
>> Let me ask you this question. Can you cite ~any~ fossil
>> that is acknowledged to be a transitional, *where fantasy
>> is not required* to make the case that it IS transitional??
>>
>> If not, then this is positive evidence that your theory is
>> based upon ---> fantasy.
> -
> - Still wrong, no matter how hard you whine, Andrew.
>
> Can't name one? Then this is evidence that your theory
> is based on fantasy.
>
>
>

I can name more than one but it takes too much time for me to type it.
Here is one for fish:
palaeoniscoids to
holostean to
teleost.

Your turn.

[linuxgal]

Andrew wrote:

> Most fossils are not fake, but are a testimony
> of the destruction that came upon the ancient
> world, and point to the destruction that is to
> come.

Sure. In five billion years, the Earth will be engulfed by the
atmosphere of a bloated Sol. We're toast.

[Budikka666]

On Oct 1, 2:17 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k4amsu$avg$1...@dont-email.me...

> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>
> > Budikka
>
> Let me ask you this question. Can you cite ~any~ fossil
> that is acknowledged to be a transitional, *where fantasy
> is not required* to make the case that it IS transitional??

Yes indeed I can and I will cite more than one when you find the guts
to face me in a one-on-one formal debate.

So are you going to do it, or are you going to *yet* *again* admit
that you have no faith in your creator's ability to help you face me
down and RUN as you have done *every* *single* *time* I've chalnged
your lies?

Budikka

[Andrew]

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:fbe7ce4e-23b5-4b66...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k4amsu$avg$...

>> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>>
>> > Budikka
>>
>> Let me ask you this question. Can you cite ~any~ fossil
>> that is acknowledged to be a transitional, *where fantasy
>> is not required* to make the case that it IS transitional??
>

> Yes indeed I can..

No you can't, and the fact that you have not is evidence that
your theory is based upon fantasy and Darwinian deception.

"The teachers of Darwinism have no limits except those
of their fantasies combined with the credulity of those
who would believe them."

~ Andrew

[Budikka666]

On Oct 3, 10:43 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:fbe7ce4e-23b5-4b66...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

> >  "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k4amsu$avg$...
> >> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>
> >> > Budikka
>
> >> Let me ask you this question. Can you cite ~any~ fossil
> >> that is acknowledged to be a transitional, *where fantasy
> >> is not required* to make the case that it IS transitional??
>
> > Yes indeed I can..
>
> No you can't, and the fact that you have not is evidence that
> your theory is based upon fantasy and Darwinian deception.

Thanks for once proving what a fundamental hypocrite you are by openly
admitting that you have ZERO faith in your pissant little tinpot god's
ability to help you beat me in a formal debate.

That's all I wanted, and once again you delivered exactly as I
expected you would. Thanks for trashing your own cause by your
cowardly brehavior! lol!

Budikka

[Seth lePod]

On Oct 3, 8:43 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:fbe7ce4e-23b5-4b66...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

> >  "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k4amsu$avg$...

:
> >> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

:

> >> Let me ask you this question. Can you cite ~any~ fossil
> >> that is acknowledged to be a transitional, *where fantasy
> >> is not required* to make the case that it IS transitional??

:
> > Yes indeed I can..

:
> No you can't, and the fact that you have not is evidence that
> your theory is based upon fantasy and Darwinian deception.

You know, I am forced to admit I'm kind of impressed
here. I myself have tried to wade through the
transitional fossil FAQ on more than one occasion, but
never made it through -- they just have way way too
many examples to take it all in. For me, anyhow.

And yet Andrew here seems to have read the entire
thing, thought about (and perhaps even did further
reading on?) each and every single one of the dozens
upon dozens upon dozens of fossils cited, and then
found some kind of flaw in each and every one.

How did he ever even find the time?



Seth

[Andrew]

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:305660a5-bc6f-4247...@j14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k4amsu$avg$...
>> >> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>>
>> >> > Budikka
>>
>> >> Let me ask you this question. Can you cite ~any~ fossil
>> >> that is acknowledged to be a transitional, *where fantasy
>> >> is not required* to make the case that it IS transitional??
>>
>> > Yes indeed I can..
>>
>> No you can't, and the fact that you have not is evidence that
>> your theory is based upon fantasy and Darwinian deception.
>>

>> Andrew

>
> Thanks for once proving what a fundamental hypocrite you are by openly
> admitting that you have ZERO faith in your pissant little tinpot god's
> ability to help you beat me in a formal debate.
>
> That's all I wanted, and once again you delivered exactly as I
> expected you would. Thanks for trashing your own cause by your
> cowardly brehavior! lol!
>
> Budikka

This is very significant folks! Even Budikka is *unable* to cite *any*
fossil that is acknowledged to be a transitional, where fantasy is not
required to make the case that it is transitional. Thus showing that..
what you have been taught as being fact, is actually based on fantasy.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists
as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn
our textbooks have data only at the tips of the nodes of their branches;
the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.
Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire
theory on a denial of this literal record . . . ."
-- Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology)

[Devils Advocaat]

On Oct 4, 7:03 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:305660a5-bc6f-4247...@j14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

Again you twist the truth by taking quotes out of context.

Gould was not dismissing evolution.

He was referring to Darwin's idea that all evolution occurs gradually.

A big difference to what you think Gould was saying.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <07WdnTiMDvhRu_DN...@earthlink.com>,

EVERY fossil is transitional, you moron.

Except the ones that are the end of a branch on the tree of life.

[Andrew]

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-42A4D8...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...

Perhaps you think that if you repeat it often enough, it becomes true.

Even Budikka is *unable* to cite *any* fossil that is acknowledged

to be a transitional, where fantasy is not required to make the case
that it is transitional. Thus showing that what you have been taught
as being fact, is based upon pure fantasy.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists
as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn
our textbooks have data only at the tips of the nodes of their branches;
the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

-- Stephen Jay Gould

[1connu]

Andrew a �crit :

Budikka is right : any living being is transitional.

If you want something spectacular, look at Lucy (australopitheque)
Most of his body has simian caracteristics and some are closer to modern humans
like bipedy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_%28Australopithecus%29
For a list :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Transitional_fossils

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Monday, 1 October 2012 08:17:49 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:k4amsu$avg$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>
> >
>
> > Budikka
>
>
>
> Let me ask you this question. Can you cite ~any~ fossil
>
> that is acknowledged to be a transitional, *where fantasy
>
> is not required* to make the case that it IS transitional??
>
>

Thing is: we're only going to find fossils of forms that were very numerous (and hence very successful), because the probability of an individual making it into the fossil record is so low.

If a transitional form scrapes through at low numbers until further mutations make for a really well-adapted form clearly it's very unlikely that the transitional form would leave fossils.

And remember, that the less well adapted a form is, the more likely that a random mutation will be an improvement, rather than detrimental.

Myself, I prefer the idea of "saltational" evolution, where a mutation hits a homeobox gene in the way that changes the whole body plan in one go.

Such a mutation, if recessive, can spread through the parent population more or less silently, with increasing frequency of mutant births to the point where the new species can find mates.



>
> If not, then this is positive evidence that your theory is
>
> based upon ---> fantasy.

No, it's data which may result in a refinement of our understanding of speciation.

There's no alternate theory available (God done it isn't a theory, because it predicts nothing).

[Joe Bruno]

On Sunday, September 30, 2012 1:58:38 PM UTC-7, BroilJAB wrote:
> Darwin said there would be millions of Missing
>
> Links found which would prove his Evolutionism.
>
> Now 188 years later, NONE ever have been found.
>
>
>
> WWW.CONSERVAPEDIA.COM/

When did Darwin say this?????Let's see a link to a quote from a
reliable source.

Fossilization is a rare event, not something that happens every day.Most animals die without leaving any traces at all.

[Ralph]

Gee bait-breath, what about the therizinosaur which is transitional
between carnivory and herbivory dinosaurs.
Also you might wish to lean the difference between extreme rarity and
none. I know that for you that is impossible
but I only wished to expose your shallow knowledge of paleontology.

[Ralph]

Perhaps if you understood the fossil system you would understand what
you are being told.

>
> Even Budikka is *unable* to cite *any* fossil that is acknowledged
> to be a transitional, where fantasy is not required to make the case
> that it is transitional. Thus showing that what you have been taught
> as being fact, is based upon pure fantasy.
>
> "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists
> as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn
> our textbooks have data only at the tips of the nodes of their branches;
> the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
> -- Stephen Jay Gould
>
>

Shown to be erroneous on other posts.

[Budikka666]

On Oct 4, 1:03 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> This is very significant folks! Even Budikka is *unable* to cite *any*
> fossil that is acknowledged to be a transitional, where fantasy is not

I have already cited scores of them *in these very newsgroups*

I will cite from the primary science literature, but you have to pay
for that, Coward for Christ, and the price is that you have to find
the guts from somewhere to face me in a formal debate.

Or you can continue to let it be known world-wide in these newsgroups
that you have precisely the same faith in your creator that any
atheist has, to whit: NONE.

Your choice.

Budikka

[Seth lePod]

On Oct 4, 12:30 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in messagenews:hlwdjsd2-42A4D8...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...

Ah. Andrew apparently overlooked ... see how kind I
am?...apparently "overlooked" my post where I expressed
my amazement that Andrew had read about every last one
of the dozens upon dozens of fossils in the
transitional fossil FAQ -- and not only had he studied
every claim, he found in each and every example,
individually, some flaw in the argument.

I find that a near-miraculous feat. For most people
that would have taken weeks. Or even months.

I feel this accomplishment shouldn't simply die there.
Andrew really should grace us with a list of..oh, say,
two dozen of those many fossils, and specify for each,
using precise paleontological reasoning, where the
"fantasy" lies.

Wouldn't that be a good idea?


Seth

[Seth lePod]

On Oct 4, 12:30 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:

> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in messagenews:hlwdjsd2-42A4D8...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...

After all, laboring away day after day in those
dank quote mines has to take something out of a guy.

:

> "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists
> as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn
> our textbooks have data only at the tips of the nodes of their branches;
> the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
> -- Stephen Jay Gould

Yep. Gould was quite the writer. In fact, let's
let him talk a bit further on this subject:


"[T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved
transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our
understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not
entirely
wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two
examples:
therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the
half-
dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an
unbroken
temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.]

Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical
bankruptcy of
their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo
to
buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter,
indeed I
am -- for I have become a major target of these practices.

I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or
episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972
my
colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated
equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil
record
-- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to
change
thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary
theory,
not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories,
small
isolated populations are the source of new species, and the
process of
speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This
amount
of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological
microsecond . . .

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is
infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists --
whether
through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that
the
fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms
are
generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant
between
larger groups.


[taken from the quote-mining FAQ, section 3.2]

Perhaps you can answer Gould's question, Andrew --
intentional "misunderstanding", or old-fashion "stupidity"?


Seth

[Andrew]

"Seth lePod" wrote in message news:d7aefd57-2273-4251...@s9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

All of them are connected with fantasy.

"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form
gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages
should be favored by natural selection. But such stories
are not part of science, for there is no way of putting
them to the test."
-- Dr. Colin Patterson (paleontologist)

As he stated, they are '"stories"', conjectured fantasy, and
are not part of science.

[Syd M.]

On Oct 5, 12:56 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Seth lePod" wrote in messagenews:d7aefd57-2273-4251...@s9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...

The only thing not connected to science is your dismissal of real
science, loser.

[Syd M.]

On Oct 3, 11:43 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:fbe7ce4e-23b5-4b66...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

> >  "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k4amsu$avg$...
> >> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>
> >> > Budikka
>
> >> Let me ask you this question. Can you cite ~any~ fossil
> >> that is acknowledged to be a transitional, *where fantasy
> >> is not required* to make the case that it IS transitional??
>
> > Yes indeed I can..
>
> No you can't, and the fact that you have not is evidence that
> your theory is based upon fantasy and Darwinian deception.
>
>

Nope.
Evolution has real FACTS backing it up.
Your wild ass conjectures and outright flights of fantasy have NOTHING.

[Syd M.]

On Oct 4, 2:03 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:305660a5-bc6f-4247...@j14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> >> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k4amsu$avg$...
> >> >> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>
> >> >> > Budikka
>
> >> >> Let me ask you this question. Can you cite ~any~ fossil
> >> >> that is acknowledged to be a transitional, *where fantasy
> >> >> is not required* to make the case that it IS transitional??
>
> >> > Yes indeed I can..
>
> >> No you can't, and the fact that you have not is evidence that
> >> your theory is based upon fantasy and Darwinian deception.
>
> >> Andrew
>
> > Thanks for once proving what a fundamental hypocrite you are by openly
> > admitting that you have ZERO faith in your pissant little tinpot god's
> > ability to help you beat me in a formal debate.
>
> > That's all I wanted, and once again you delivered exactly as I
> > expected you would.  Thanks for trashing your own cause by your
> > cowardly brehavior!  lol!
>
> > Budikka
>
> This is very significant folks! Even Budikka is *unable* to cite *any*
> fossil that is acknowledged to be a transitional, where fantasy is not
> required to make the case that it is transitional.

Just refuse to stop lying, eh, Andrew?
Still doesn't make your musings in any way real, loser.

[Syd M.]

On Oct 4, 3:30 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in messagenews:hlwdjsd2-42A4D8...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...

She repeats it so often because it IS true, willfully ignorant one.

[SkyEyes]

Pearls before swine, Seth.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[SkyEyes]

On Oct 4, 9:56 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Seth lePod" wrote in messagenews:d7aefd57-2273-4251...@s9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...

Ooooh, no. You don't get off that easy.

List EACH transitional fossil at the link Seth gave you, and point out
exactly why and in what way *each* is "connected with fantasy."

>
> "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form
> gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages
> should be favored by natural selection. But such stories
> are not part of science, for there is no way of putting
> them to the test."
>                             -- Dr. Colin Patterson (paleontologist)
>
> As he stated, they are '"stories"', conjectured fantasy, and
> are not part of science.

But, you should excuse me, this is a quote taken out of context. He
didn't say that each transitional's story *was* fantasy, only that
making them up was "easy ...." Apparently you don't read for
comprehension.

Come on, Andrew, here and now: an explanation of *each* transitional
fossil listed at the transitional FAQ, and a detailed explanation of
*how* and *why* each is a "fantasy."

[Ralph]

Pseudoscientists often reveal themselves by their handling of the
scientific literature. Their idea of doing scientific research is simply
to read scientific periodicals and monographs. They focus on words, not
on the underlying facts and reasoning. They take science to be all
statements by scientists. Science degenerates into a secular substitute
for sacred literature. Any statement by any scientist can be cited
against any other statement. Every statement counts and every statement
is open to interpretation.
—Radner and Radner, Science and Unreason, ISBN 0-534-01153-5

[The Magpie]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/10/2012 05:58, Andrew wrote:
>
> All of them are connected with fantasy.
>

Only in your own twisted mind.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQbvYIAAoJEKy1URILypCGD2wH/34GIb0/6LifKiNppzGLBwP0
EZ49f2FunHk++0WRo+ZJvW7vost8frJk4BavueTDjBeQ2Lc6PozgzB6TZyWMgrZP
pTOCVuJZ3VyHAA7+wFpKkxwdog7m1Ag4hPo8vlsEQfYQY8hQxIB2D8sFxB55uv5s
Yvo104JajKzz2IJcNXMCucIU754UpcwRuiNbUXW//Ea50gW/LzX1si2O9eSZdYgd
e3GpcSSwl57XYsP3IXZaJcVQEVScJ6yk17irIwyxdphYLDIwzgMm8iNn7GBmv+T7
/TUzvqE3Ec1RWyQTYU6bDDUelG9laJsvA4vDB5GtxU/6XJcWMq2yCBrPfihuM9M=
=9rsP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Andrew]

"The Magpie" wrote in message news:dCCbs.211845$F52....@fx22.am4...

> Andrew wrote:
>>
>> All of them are connected with fantasy.
>>
> Only in your own twisted mind.

The ship of fools keep sailing on
And on and on and on
The truth is always hard to face
Especially when you are in that place,
Like the ship of fools
The ship of fools keep sailing on
The ship of fools keep sailing on
And on and on and on
And so the deception continues
Transitional fossils galore they say
They're ALL transitional!
So the ship of fools keep sailing on
The ship of fools keep sailing on
And on and on and on
And so the deception continues

~ Selected

[Devils Advocaat]

On Oct 5, 4:56 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "The Magpie" wrote in messagenews:dCCbs.211845$F52....@fx22.am4...

Oh Andrew, to steal another's work, and then mangle it to suit your
twisted view of the world, how could you?

[Ralph]

You are the only fool I see in this debate. Why don't you learn a little
science so the rest of us can quit laughing at your ignorance.

[Andrew]

"Ralph" wrote in message news:OLadnfiYyIaRrfLN...@giganews.com...
> Andrew wrote:

>> "The Magpie" wrote:
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> All of them are connected with fantasy.
>>>>
>>> Only in your own twisted mind.
>
>> The ship of fools keep sailing on
>> And on and on and on
>> The truth is always hard to face
>> Especially when you are in that place,
>> Like the ship of fools
>> The ship of fools keep sailing on
>> The ship of fools keep sailing on
>> And on and on and on
>> And so the deception continues
>> Transitional fossils galore they say

>> "They're ALL transitional"! they shout.

>> So the ship of fools keep sailing on
>> The ship of fools keep sailing on
>> And on and on and on
>> And so the deception continues
>>
>> ~ Selected
>>
>>
> You are the only fool I see in this
> debate. Why don't you learn a little
> science so the rest of us can quit
> laughing at your ignorance.


And so the deception continues
Transitional fossils galore they say

"They're ALL transitional"! they shout.

[Seth lePod]

On Oct 4, 9:56 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:

> "Seth lePod" wrote in messagenews:d7aefd57-2273-4251...@s9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...

No no no no no. It would be a shame to let all your
work on this topic disappear forever. Please, list a
dozen of the fossils from the FAQ and show us the
errors you found with each.

Here, take all the space you need:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


Seth

[Seth lePod]

On Oct 4, 9:56 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:

> "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form
> gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages
> should be favored by natural selection. But such stories
> are not part of science, for there is no way of putting
> them to the test."
> -- Dr. Colin Patterson (paleontologist)

Have you not yet figured out that every time you
dishonestly quote mine something a scientist said,
deceptively trying to make it appear he renounces
evolution, someone here will go out and uncover
the entire story? And then bitch-slap you in the face
with it?

I suppose one of the attributes of a good liar is never
to feel embarrassment, no matter how many times your
lies are exposed. If that's so, Andrew is something of
a genius.


Here's your bitch-slap for today:

-- http://tinyurl.com/27mxrm


It's admittedly long, so here's a teaser to whet your
appetite. It's from Colin Petterson's book
"Evolution":

"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils
are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing
types. In mammals, for example, the gap between
horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their
closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and
tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils
extending back sixty-million years to a small
animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be
distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by
one or two horse-like details of the skull. There
are many other examples of fossil 'missing links',
such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which
links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and
Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which
links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate
(having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."


Seth

[Ralph]

When you can refute the last transitional fossils to which I directed you,
then you can repeat your usual lies. Until then STFU.

[Uirgil]

In article <cN2dnW50Er-k9vLN...@earthlink.com>,

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> So the ship of fools keep sailing on
> The ship of fools keep sailing on
> And on and on and on
> And so the deception continues

The only fools here , in ships or otherwise, are those who claim that
Evolution must be false because it conflicts with their religion.

[Budikka666]

Proving yet again that this hypocrite is a pathological LIAR who has NO
faith in the very god he demands we accept, Andrew-a-Blank FLED from
Budikka's debate offer on transitional fossils.

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 18:20:29 -0700, Seth lePod wrote:

> Have you not yet figured out that every time you dishonestly quote mine
> something a scientist said, deceptively trying to make it appear he
> renounces evolution, someone here will go out and uncover the entire
> story? And then bitch-slap you in the face with it?
>
> I suppose one of the attributes of a good liar is never to feel
> embarrassment, no matter how many times your lies are exposed. If
> that's so, Andrew is something of a genius.

Well, let's keep in mind the following, from St. Ignatius Loyola's works,
part of the rules he espouses for the order (Jesuits) and for Christian
life:

"To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which
I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it..."

Yes, you read that correctly. If something is white, but the church says
it's black... then it must be black.

This sort of ingrained dishonesty is not limited to the Jesuits, nor to
the Mormons with their effectively codified "Lying for the Lord"; you can
see its application in here almost every day.

[HVAC]

On 11/27/2012 8:39 PM, Benj wrote:
>
>> BJ's Achilles heel seems to be crop circles...However, BJ is somewhat
>> serendipitous regarding his proclivity towards the paranormal.
>>
>> (I think he's embarrassed by his kooky beliefs, but is stuck)
>
> "Belief" is only important to politicians, priests and "wordsmiths". I
> only deal in science. That is foreign territory to you and most other
> loud mouths here.

Certainly, BJ, you would agree that anyone who believes in ghosts is no
scientist, right?

>
> You are actually communicating with Snider? I can understand feeling
> pity for TreBert's condition, but communicating with Snider? He's just
> wasting perfectly good air and expelling CO2 warming the planet and
> causing huge storms. I expected better from someone with your measured
> IQ.


Please provide me with a full list of your known enemies, so I will know
better in the future.










--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg

[Benj]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:23:26 -0500, HVAC wrote:

> On 11/27/2012 8:39 PM, Benj wrote:

> Certainly, BJ, you would agree that anyone who believes in ghosts is no
> scientist, right?

IF you had any science education, Harlow, you'd know that science is not
a matter of "belief". That is strictly the domain of your religion.

As I've pointed out to you MANY times in the past, science is NOT
concerned about a "belief" in anything be it ghosts, UFOs or government
conspiracies. One can suspect that certain things MAY be true, but facts
are established by actual observation, not "belief". This is where you
atheists and other leftist political types step on your own dick.

>> You are actually communicating with Snider? I can understand feeling
>> pity for TreBert's condition, but communicating with Snider? He's just
>> wasting perfectly good air and expelling CO2 warming the planet and
>> causing huge storms. I expected better from someone with your measured
>> IQ.
>
> Please provide me with a full list of your known enemies, so I will know
> better in the future.

Snider is EVERYONE's enemy. Well, not so much an "enemy". He's really not
smart enough to be an enemy. He's more like a loud yappy little dog. The
problem is you still end up having to check to see what he's yapping
about before you yell at him to shut up.

[HVAC]

On 11/28/2012 10:43 AM, Benj wrote:
>
>> Certainly, BJ, you would agree that anyone who believes in ghosts is no
>> scientist, right?
>
> IF you had any science education, Harlow, you'd know that science is not
> a matter of "belief". That is strictly the domain of your religion.

A yes or no answer is what I was looking for.

The fact that you and Painus dance around this question like some
drunken ballerina points up how afraid you both are of a direct question.

[HVAC]

On 11/28/2012 10:43 AM, Benj wrote:
>

> As I've pointed out to you MANY times in the past, science is NOT
> concerned about a "belief" in anything be it ghosts, UFOs or government
> conspiracies.

Of which you believe in 3 out of 3.

> One can suspect that certain things MAY be true, but facts
> are established by actual observation, not "belief". This is where you
> atheists and other leftist political types step on your own dick.

First of all, I am neither left nor right, politically. Unlike you, I
judge each issue on it's own merits and don't toe the party line.

Secondly, since there have been zero observations of ghosts, I don't
believe that they exist. The same goes for all the rest of the
paranormal shit that YOU believe in.

>> Please provide me with a full list of your known enemies, so I will know
>> better in the future.
>
> Snider is EVERYONE's enemy. Well, not so much an "enemy". He's really not
> smart enough to be an enemy. He's more like a loud yappy little dog. The
> problem is you still end up having to check to see what he's yapping
> about before you yell at him to shut up.

I have had no dealing with him in the past, and I judge people by their
actions. I hold no opinion of Mr. Snyder either way. However, the fact
that YOU don't like him weighs heavily in his favor.

[Benj]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:20:11 -0500, HVAC wrote:

> On 11/28/2012 10:43 AM, Benj wrote:
>>
>>> Certainly, BJ, you would agree that anyone who believes in ghosts is
>>> no scientist, right?
>>
>> IF you had any science education, Harlow, you'd know that science is
>> not a matter of "belief". That is strictly the domain of your religion.
>
> A yes or no answer is what I was looking for.
>
> The fact that you and Painus dance around this question like some
> drunken ballerina points up how afraid you both are of a direct
> question.

You are acting like some slippery lawyer demanding a yes or no answer to
some complex question to which I've sworn an oath to tell the whole
truth.

Say, you wouldn't actually BE a lawyer, would you? That would explain a
LOT!

[Benj]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:26:33 -0500, HVAC wrote:

> On 11/28/2012 10:43 AM, Benj wrote:
>>
>> As I've pointed out to you MANY times in the past, science is NOT
>> concerned about a "belief" in anything be it ghosts, UFOs or government
>> conspiracies.
>
> Of which you believe in 3 out of 3.

You have NO evidence of what I "believe" and yet you constantly lie
asserting it to be "fact".

>> One can suspect that certain things MAY be true, but facts are
>> established by actual observation, not "belief". This is where you
>> atheists and other leftist political types step on your own dick.
>
> First of all, I am neither left nor right, politically. Unlike you, I
> judge each issue on it's own merits and don't toe the party line.

No you don't. You lie about this too. You show that for you it's all
about "belief" and not merits. You don't know what you think, so you let
others think for you. At least TreeBert doesn't do that!

> Secondly, since there have been zero observations of ghosts, I don't
> believe that they exist. The same goes for all the rest of the
> paranormal shit that YOU believe in.

This is a statement so blatantly false that it's "not even wrong" as they
say. I've pointed out before the evidence for "remote viewing" which like
Sam on "climate change" is simply ignored as if it does not exist. This
is not how people with high IQs act. I suggest you attend a Mensa meeting
or two to learn more about your behavior.

>>> Please provide me with a full list of your known enemies, so I will
>>> know better in the future.
>>
>> Snider is EVERYONE's enemy. Well, not so much an "enemy". He's really
>> not smart enough to be an enemy. He's more like a loud yappy little
>> dog. The problem is you still end up having to check to see what he's
>> yapping about before you yell at him to shut up.

> I have had no dealing with him in the past, and I judge people by their
> actions. I hold no opinion of Mr. Snyder either way. However, the fact
> that YOU don't like him weighs heavily in his favor.

I never said I didn't like him! If you can show any post where I said I
didn't like him, I'll never post here again! Come on, HVAC, put that
gummint NSA server to good use and try to find it. I like many idiots! I
like TreeBert. I even like you, Harlow!

[HVAC]

On 11/28/2012 5:31 PM, Benj wrote:
>
>> The fact that you and Painus dance around this question like some
>> drunken ballerina points up how afraid you both are of a direct
>> question.
>
>
> You are acting like some slippery lawyer demanding a yes or no answer to
> some complex question to which I've sworn an oath to tell the whole
> truth.
>
> Say, you wouldn't actually BE a lawyer, would you? That would explain a
> LOT!

I told you, I am retired.

[HVAC]

On 11/28/2012 5:39 PM, Benj wrote:
>
>>> As I've pointed out to you MANY times in the past, science is NOT
>>> concerned about a "belief" in anything be it ghosts, UFOs or government
>>> conspiracies.
>>
>> Of which you believe in 3 out of 3.
>
> You have NO evidence of what I "believe" and yet you constantly lie
> asserting it to be "fact".

If you won't give a direct answer to a direct question, I will insert
the answer that best supports my position. Suck on that.

[HVAC]

On 11/28/2012 5:39 PM, Benj wrote:
>
>>>
>>

>> First of all, I am neither left nor right, politically. Unlike you, I
>> judge each issue on it's own merits and don't toe the party line.
>
> No you don't. You lie about this too. You show that for you it's all
> about "belief" and not merits. You don't know what you think, so you let
> others think for you. At least TreeBert doesn't do that!

Dude...You're getting hysterical. Calm down.

>> Secondly, since there have been zero observations of ghosts, I don't
>> believe that they exist. The same goes for all the rest of the
>> paranormal shit that YOU believe in.
>
> This is a statement so blatantly false that it's "not even wrong" as they
> say. I've pointed out before the evidence for "remote viewing" which like
> Sam on "climate change" is simply ignored as if it does not exist. This
> is not how people with high IQs act. I suggest you attend a Mensa meeting
> or two to learn more about your behavior.

Your woo-woo beliefs are of no importance to me.

>>>> Please provide me with a full list of your known enemies, so I will
>>>> know better in the future.
>>>
>>> Snider is EVERYONE's enemy. Well, not so much an "enemy". He's really
>>> not smart enough to be an enemy. He's more like a loud yappy little
>>> dog. The problem is you still end up having to check to see what he's
>>> yapping about before you yell at him to shut up.
>
>> I have had no dealing with him in the past, and I judge people by their
>> actions. I hold no opinion of Mr. Snyder either way. However, the fact
>> that YOU don't like him weighs heavily in his favor.
>
> I never said I didn't like him!

You said he was your 'enemy'. I'm pretty much going with the words that
are coming from YOUR mouth.

[Benj]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:28:22 -0500, HVAC wrote:

>> Say, you wouldn't actually BE a lawyer, would you? That would explain a
>> LOT!
>
> I told you, I am retired.

Retired lawyer? :-)

[Benj]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:30:27 -0500, HVAC wrote:

> On 11/28/2012 5:39 PM, Benj wrote:
>>
>>>> As I've pointed out to you MANY times in the past, science is NOT
>>>> concerned about a "belief" in anything be it ghosts, UFOs or
>>>> government conspiracies.
>>>
>>> Of which you believe in 3 out of 3.
>>
>> You have NO evidence of what I "believe" and yet you constantly lie
>> asserting it to be "fact".
>
> If you won't give a direct answer to a direct question, I will insert
> the answer that best supports my position. Suck on that.

"will"? You mean just make shit up like you always do and pretend it's
fact. No wonder you have no credibility here.

[Benj]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:34:32 -0500, HVAC wrote:
> On 11/28/2012 5:39 PM, Benj wrote:

>> No you don't. You lie about this too. You show that for you it's all
>> about "belief" and not merits. You don't know what you think, so you
>> let others think for you. At least TreeBert doesn't do that!
>
>
> Dude...You're getting hysterical. Calm down.

Nobody is "hysterical" here except in your over-worked imagination. Your
lies are fact not an accusation.

>>> Secondly, since there have been zero observations of ghosts, I don't
>>> believe that they exist. The same goes for all the rest of the
>>> paranormal shit that YOU believe in.
>>
>> This is a statement so blatantly false that it's "not even wrong" as
>> they say. I've pointed out before the evidence for "remote viewing"
>> which like Sam on "climate change" is simply ignored as if it does not
>> exist. This is not how people with high IQs act. I suggest you attend a
>> Mensa meeting or two to learn more about your behavior.
>
>
> Your woo-woo beliefs are of no importance to me.

Of course, they are. Otherwise why would you be working so hard to try to
force me to say I "believe" in this or that topic? And oddly when given
hard evidence, you prentend nothing has been said. Very good propaganda
technique but extremely poor science. Are you still pretending to be some
kind of "scientist"? I think that whopper has been pretty thoroughly
debunked.

> You said he was your 'enemy'. I'm pretty much going with the words that
> are coming from YOUR mouth.

You misquote me. Show me my post.

[HVAC]

Retired 'Adjuster'.

[HVAC]

On 11/29/2012 12:26 AM, Benj wrote:
>
>> Your woo-woo beliefs are of no importance to me.
>
> Of course, they are. Otherwise why would you be working so hard to try to
> force me to say I "believe" in this or that topic?

Let's just stick with ghosts. Do you believe in ghosts?
It's a simple yes or no answer, BJ. The fact that you will NOT answer it
only points up your weak-mindedness and shame at your OWN answer.

>> You said he was your 'enemy'. I'm pretty much going with the words that
>> are coming from YOUR mouth.
>
> You misquote me. Show me my post.

Pass.