The great lie that is evolution
05-28-2004, 12:12 PM
#111
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The great lie that is evolution
Xomicron wrote:
> I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern man
> has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living
> beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those
> changes in the first place.
>
> Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved
> scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in
> the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support
> our position.
>
> Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess,
> suppose, etc. but they don't "know."
>
> Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing,
> convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science.
So what's your favourite Star Trek episode?
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
> I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern man
> has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living
> beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those
> changes in the first place.
>
> Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved
> scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in
> the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support
> our position.
>
> Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess,
> suppose, etc. but they don't "know."
>
> Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing,
> convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science.
So what's your favourite Star Trek episode?
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
05-28-2004, 12:12 PM
#112
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The great lie that is evolution
Xomicron wrote:
> I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern man
> has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living
> beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those
> changes in the first place.
>
> Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved
> scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in
> the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support
> our position.
>
> Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess,
> suppose, etc. but they don't "know."
>
> Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing,
> convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science.
So what's your favourite Star Trek episode?
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
> I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern man
> has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living
> beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those
> changes in the first place.
>
> Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved
> scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in
> the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support
> our position.
>
> Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess,
> suppose, etc. but they don't "know."
>
> Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing,
> convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science.
So what's your favourite Star Trek episode?
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
05-28-2004, 12:12 PM
#113
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The great lie that is evolution
Xomicron wrote:
> I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern man
> has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living
> beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those
> changes in the first place.
>
> Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved
> scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in
> the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support
> our position.
>
> Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess,
> suppose, etc. but they don't "know."
>
> Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing,
> convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science.
So what's your favourite Star Trek episode?
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
> I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern man
> has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living
> beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those
> changes in the first place.
>
> Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved
> scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in
> the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support
> our position.
>
> Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess,
> suppose, etc. but they don't "know."
>
> Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing,
> convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science.
So what's your favourite Star Trek episode?
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
05-28-2004, 12:18 PM
#114
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c97nld$lna$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > > this is a non-sequitor.
> >
> > Correct. That statement fully qualifies as a non sequitur.
>
> well, it does by itself . . . depends on whether or not you take "this" to
> mean "this quote which i have just posted" or "this statement". smartass
:-)
This statement cannot be proved.
--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own
news:c97nld$lna$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > > this is a non-sequitor.
> >
> > Correct. That statement fully qualifies as a non sequitur.
>
> well, it does by itself . . . depends on whether or not you take "this" to
> mean "this quote which i have just posted" or "this statement". smartass
:-)
This statement cannot be proved.
--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own
05-28-2004, 12:18 PM
#115
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c97nld$lna$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > > this is a non-sequitor.
> >
> > Correct. That statement fully qualifies as a non sequitur.
>
> well, it does by itself . . . depends on whether or not you take "this" to
> mean "this quote which i have just posted" or "this statement". smartass
:-)
This statement cannot be proved.
--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own
news:c97nld$lna$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > > this is a non-sequitor.
> >
> > Correct. That statement fully qualifies as a non sequitur.
>
> well, it does by itself . . . depends on whether or not you take "this" to
> mean "this quote which i have just posted" or "this statement". smartass
:-)
This statement cannot be proved.
--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own
05-28-2004, 12:18 PM
#116
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c97nld$lna$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > > this is a non-sequitor.
> >
> > Correct. That statement fully qualifies as a non sequitur.
>
> well, it does by itself . . . depends on whether or not you take "this" to
> mean "this quote which i have just posted" or "this statement". smartass
:-)
This statement cannot be proved.
--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own
news:c97nld$lna$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > > this is a non-sequitor.
> >
> > Correct. That statement fully qualifies as a non sequitur.
>
> well, it does by itself . . . depends on whether or not you take "this" to
> mean "this quote which i have just posted" or "this statement". smartass
:-)
This statement cannot be proved.
--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own
05-28-2004, 12:18 PM
#117
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c97nld$lna$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > > this is a non-sequitor.
> >
> > Correct. That statement fully qualifies as a non sequitur.
>
> well, it does by itself . . . depends on whether or not you take "this" to
> mean "this quote which i have just posted" or "this statement". smartass
:-)
This statement cannot be proved.
--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own
news:c97nld$lna$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > > this is a non-sequitor.
> >
> > Correct. That statement fully qualifies as a non sequitur.
>
> well, it does by itself . . . depends on whether or not you take "this" to
> mean "this quote which i have just posted" or "this statement". smartass
:-)
This statement cannot be proved.
--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own
05-28-2004, 01:16 PM
#118
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The great lie that is evolution
> > > > this is a non-sequitor.
> > >
> > > Correct. That statement fully qualifies as a non sequitur.
> >
> > well, it does by itself . . . depends on whether or not you take "this"
to
> > mean "this quote which i have just posted" or "this statement". smartass
> :-)
>
> This statement cannot be proved.
which one, and why?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=non%20sequitur
"non sequitur
n 1: a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it 2: (logic) a
conclusion that does not follow from the premises"
JQM
05-28-2004, 01:16 PM
#119
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The great lie that is evolution
> > > > this is a non-sequitor.
> > >
> > > Correct. That statement fully qualifies as a non sequitur.
> >
> > well, it does by itself . . . depends on whether or not you take "this"
to
> > mean "this quote which i have just posted" or "this statement". smartass
> :-)
>
> This statement cannot be proved.
which one, and why?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=non%20sequitur
"non sequitur
n 1: a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it 2: (logic) a
conclusion that does not follow from the premises"
JQM
05-28-2004, 01:16 PM
#120
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The great lie that is evolution
> > > > this is a non-sequitor.
> > >
> > > Correct. That statement fully qualifies as a non sequitur.
> >
> > well, it does by itself . . . depends on whether or not you take "this"
to
> > mean "this quote which i have just posted" or "this statement". smartass
> :-)
>
> This statement cannot be proved.
which one, and why?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=non%20sequitur
"non sequitur
n 1: a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it 2: (logic) a
conclusion that does not follow from the premises"
JQM