Re: The great lie that is evolution
 

>
>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.
>
Do you have fairies at the bottom of your garden too?

******Martin Edwards.******

Come on! Nobody's going to ride that lousy freeway
when they can take the Red Car for a nickel.

Eddy Valiant.

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955/

Re: The great lie that is evolution
 

>
>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.
>
Do you have fairies at the bottom of your garden too?

******Martin Edwards.******

Come on! Nobody's going to ride that lousy freeway
when they can take the Red Car for a nickel.

Eddy Valiant.

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955/

Re: The great lie that is evolution
 

>
>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.
>
Do you have fairies at the bottom of your garden too?

******Martin Edwards.******

Come on! Nobody's going to ride that lousy freeway
when they can take the Red Car for a nickel.

Eddy Valiant.

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955/

Re: The great lie that is evolution
 

"James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote:

> > Kadaitcha Man wrote:

> > This statement cannot be proved.
>
> which one, and why?

You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to contend with
self-referential logic, not just notions of basic syntax, so I don't fancy
your chances of figuring it out.

I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have such a
tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most mildly twisted
notion escapes them.

Even more shocking than that, there is an ever increasing number of
Blitshitters who have a similarly weak grasp on Engrish words and meanings.
And they claim to have invented the ------- language. Shame on them, eh.
Shame on them.

> 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"

Why are you telling me that, you ----tard?

--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own

Re: The great lie that is evolution
 

"James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote:

> > Kadaitcha Man wrote:

> > This statement cannot be proved.
>
> which one, and why?

You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to contend with
self-referential logic, not just notions of basic syntax, so I don't fancy
your chances of figuring it out.

I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have such a
tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most mildly twisted
notion escapes them.

Even more shocking than that, there is an ever increasing number of
Blitshitters who have a similarly weak grasp on Engrish words and meanings.
And they claim to have invented the ------- language. Shame on them, eh.
Shame on them.

> 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"

Why are you telling me that, you ----tard?

--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own

Re: The great lie that is evolution
 

"James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote:

> > Kadaitcha Man wrote:

> > This statement cannot be proved.
>
> which one, and why?

You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to contend with
self-referential logic, not just notions of basic syntax, so I don't fancy
your chances of figuring it out.

I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have such a
tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most mildly twisted
notion escapes them.

Even more shocking than that, there is an ever increasing number of
Blitshitters who have a similarly weak grasp on Engrish words and meanings.
And they claim to have invented the ------- language. Shame on them, eh.
Shame on them.

> 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"

Why are you telling me that, you ----tard?

--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own

Re: The great lie that is evolution
 

"James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote:

> > Kadaitcha Man wrote:

> > This statement cannot be proved.
>
> which one, and why?

You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to contend with
self-referential logic, not just notions of basic syntax, so I don't fancy
your chances of figuring it out.

I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have such a
tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most mildly twisted
notion escapes them.

Even more shocking than that, there is an ever increasing number of
Blitshitters who have a similarly weak grasp on Engrish words and meanings.
And they claim to have invented the ------- language. Shame on them, eh.
Shame on them.

> 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"

Why are you telling me that, you ----tard?

--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own

Re: The great lie that is evolution
 

> > > This statement cannot be proved.
> >
> > which one, and why?
>
> You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to contend with
> self-referential logic, not just notions of basic syntax, so I don't fancy
> your chances of figuring it out.
>
> I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have such a
> tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most mildly twisted
> notion escapes them.

this is the point where i stopped reading because it became obvious that not
only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually) but you were ignorant,
arrogant, and instead of having any interest in debate were concerned solely
with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case. nice try, troll,
but i'm not buying.

feel free to type out whatever slanderous, ill-founded and poorly structured
counter arguments and/or obscenities (are you able to make the distinction?)
you wish but i won't be reading them, as i generally killfile the people who
post your sort of drivel.

JQM

Re: The great lie that is evolution
 

> > > This statement cannot be proved.
> >
> > which one, and why?
>
> You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to contend with
> self-referential logic, not just notions of basic syntax, so I don't fancy
> your chances of figuring it out.
>
> I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have such a
> tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most mildly twisted
> notion escapes them.

this is the point where i stopped reading because it became obvious that not
only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually) but you were ignorant,
arrogant, and instead of having any interest in debate were concerned solely
with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case. nice try, troll,
but i'm not buying.

feel free to type out whatever slanderous, ill-founded and poorly structured
counter arguments and/or obscenities (are you able to make the distinction?)
you wish but i won't be reading them, as i generally killfile the people who
post your sort of drivel.

JQM

Re: The great lie that is evolution
 

> > > This statement cannot be proved.
> >
> > which one, and why?
>
> You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to contend with
> self-referential logic, not just notions of basic syntax, so I don't fancy
> your chances of figuring it out.
>
> I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have such a
> tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most mildly twisted
> notion escapes them.

this is the point where i stopped reading because it became obvious that not
only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually) but you were ignorant,
arrogant, and instead of having any interest in debate were concerned solely
with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case. nice try, troll,
but i'm not buying.

feel free to type out whatever slanderous, ill-founded and poorly structured
counter arguments and/or obscenities (are you able to make the distinction?)
you wish but i won't be reading them, as i generally killfile the people who
post your sort of drivel.

JQM