Re: The great lie that is evolution
"James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> this is a non-sequitor. Correct. That statement fully qualifies as a non sequitur. -- 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:
> this is a non-sequitor. Correct. That statement fully qualifies as a non sequitur. -- 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:
> this is a non-sequitor. Correct. That statement fully qualifies as a non sequitur. -- 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
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:5Hxtc.46930$kc2.711218@nnrp1.uunet.ca... > I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern man > has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living > beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those > changes in the first place. > Science is objective, religion is what you (want to) believe. Science tries to prove things through experiments that can be repeated. The methods being used by evolutions are scientific methods. Of course, science cannot explain everything yet. They've already proven that much faith, religion is nothing but --------. For example, in the old days the Germans believed that thunder and lightning were caused by Gods like Thor and Wodan. Science has proven that to be untrue. Now what do you think is more reliable? > Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved > scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in > the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support > our position. > I'm very interested in your objective, scientific evidence. I'm pretty sure that you will fail, once again. > Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, > suppose, etc. but they don't "know." Religion is what you want to believe. A religious fanatic BELIEVES, he doesn't KNOW. Otherwise it wouldn't be called FAITH. > > Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, > convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. People already labeled you as a troll. I hope you're not, otherwise I'm really wasting my time. But the fact the matter is, your controversial viewpoints cause long threads. And yes, that's what any troll is up to, isn't he? |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:5Hxtc.46930$kc2.711218@nnrp1.uunet.ca... > 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. > Science is objective, religion is what you (want to) believe. Science tries to prove things through experiments that can be repeated. The methods being used by evolutions are scientific methods. Of course, science cannot explain everything yet. They've already proven that much faith, religion is nothing but --------. For example, in the old days the Germans believed that thunder and lightning were caused by Gods like Thor and Wodan. Science has proven that to be untrue. Now what do you think is more reliable? > 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. > I'm very interested in your objective, scientific evidence. I'm pretty sure that you will fail, once again. > Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, > suppose, etc. but they don't "know." Religion is what you want to believe. A religious fanatic BELIEVES, he doesn't KNOW. Otherwise it wouldn't be called FAITH. > > Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, > convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. People already labeled you as a troll. I hope you're not, otherwise I'm really wasting my time. But the fact the matter is, your controversial viewpoints cause long threads. And yes, that's what any troll is up to, isn't he? |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:5Hxtc.46930$kc2.711218@nnrp1.uunet.ca... > I am waiting for evolutionists to support their assertion that modern man > has somehow been able to observe changes that have taken place in living > beings regardless that modern man is supposedly a result of those > changes in the first place. > Science is objective, religion is what you (want to) believe. Science tries to prove things through experiments that can be repeated. The methods being used by evolutions are scientific methods. Of course, science cannot explain everything yet. They've already proven that much faith, religion is nothing but --------. For example, in the old days the Germans believed that thunder and lightning were caused by Gods like Thor and Wodan. Science has proven that to be untrue. Now what do you think is more reliable? > Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution can be proved > scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in > the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support > our position. > I'm very interested in your objective, scientific evidence. I'm pretty sure that you will fail, once again. > Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, > suppose, etc. but they don't "know." Religion is what you want to believe. A religious fanatic BELIEVES, he doesn't KNOW. Otherwise it wouldn't be called FAITH. > > Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, > convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. People already labeled you as a troll. I hope you're not, otherwise I'm really wasting my time. But the fact the matter is, your controversial viewpoints cause long threads. And yes, that's what any troll is up to, isn't he? |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:5Hxtc.46930$kc2.711218@nnrp1.uunet.ca... > 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. > Science is objective, religion is what you (want to) believe. Science tries to prove things through experiments that can be repeated. The methods being used by evolutions are scientific methods. Of course, science cannot explain everything yet. They've already proven that much faith, religion is nothing but --------. For example, in the old days the Germans believed that thunder and lightning were caused by Gods like Thor and Wodan. Science has proven that to be untrue. Now what do you think is more reliable? > 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. > I'm very interested in your objective, scientific evidence. I'm pretty sure that you will fail, once again. > Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, > suppose, etc. but they don't "know." Religion is what you want to believe. A religious fanatic BELIEVES, he doesn't KNOW. Otherwise it wouldn't be called FAITH. > > Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, > convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. People already labeled you as a troll. I hope you're not, otherwise I'm really wasting my time. But the fact the matter is, your controversial viewpoints cause long threads. And yes, that's what any troll is up to, isn't he? |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Shiva" <shiva87@hotmail.com> wrote
> Science tries > to prove things through experiments that can be repeated. Oh well. There go quantum and string theories. -- 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
"Shiva" <shiva87@hotmail.com> wrote
> Science tries > to prove things through experiments that can be repeated. Oh well. There go quantum and string theories. -- 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
"Shiva" <shiva87@hotmail.com> wrote
> Science tries > to prove things through experiments that can be repeated. Oh well. There go quantum and string theories. -- Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402 Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500 gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:50 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands