Kadaitcha Man

"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

Kadaitcha Man

"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

Kadaitcha Man

"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

Shiva

"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?

Shiva

"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?

Shiva

"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?

Shiva

"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?

Kadaitcha Man

"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

Kadaitcha Man

"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

Kadaitcha Man

"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