Jump to content
Science Forums

Evolution vs Religion


OpenMind5
 Share

Recommended Posts

Tormod: I understand that you set this site up to discuss SCEINCE and I assume, in SCIENTIFIC trms and processes. Unfortunately, you have been hijacked by idiots trying desperately to cling to whatever mystical nonsense they are brainwashed with. They refuse to carry on LOGICAL and intellectually HONEST discourse. When PROOF is requested, they do everything they can to ignore it. When PROOF is submitted they are not able to refute it, they just reject it becuase it does not conform to their antiquated superstitious nonsense.

 

This mental masterbation may give pleasure to some. I find it a dead end. A dead end that is stopping society from acheiving the positive advancements it could otherwise achieve. There is not a single peer reviewed, respected scientist in a directly related field that questions Evolution as the ONLY existing valid explaination for the diversity of life found on earth. In fact there are more "Scientists named Steve" that stand behind Evolution than there are psuedo-scientists claiming Evolution is wrong.

 

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4023_the_press_release_2_16_2003.asp

 

But once again, I resort to the antithesis of this site, FACTS. Sorry to sully this site with such god hating realities.

 

Please feel free to go back to mind numbing platitudes and theological ramblings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by: Freethinker

 

This mental masterbation may give pleasure to some. I find it a dead end. A dead end that is stopping society from acheiving the positive advancements it could otherwise achieve. There is not a single peer reviewed, respected scientist in a directly related field that questions Evolution as the ONLY existing valid explaination for the diversity of life found on earth. In fact there are more "Scientists named Steve" that stand behind Evolution than there are psuedo-scientists claiming Evolution is wrong.

 

Freethinker, I beg to differ with you, again. And hopefully, I won't get booted for deigning to disagree. I promise not to call you a psuedo-intellectual person, even though you have been routinely more rude and/or condescending to people that do not accept your view of evolution. I will trust that Tormod will excuse my lack of faith in your religion of evolution. And yes, it is a religion. Whether or not you will acknowedge God (capital GGGGGG, yeah, I know it was on purpose), you should realize that teaching evolution in school is teaching more religion than most people get in their church. Only three of the world's 'main' religions teach an absolutist view of creation, that involves no evolution.

 

You've ranted about Tim and his lack of proof. I have repeatedly said that I have no positive scientific poof of God, but that I had evidences of the weak position of evolution for the "explanation of the diversity of life found on earth". Also, as you ridiculed others with your semantics regarding evolution and abiogenesis, you still failed to refute my claim that abiogenesis can be disproven MATHEMATICALLY. So, if abiogenesis can be disproven, and we have all been enlightened that evolution does not explain the origins of life, please explain what does.

 

The process of one species changing to another has never been proven. Yes, species can adapt. Dogs can grow more hair, longer legs, etc., but they are still dogs. The color of the wings of butterflies can 'evolve' from more dark to light, but they remain butterflies (or peppered moths, depending on the study). Did dinosaurs evolve into birds? How old is this theory, an how was it formed? Where is the "proof" or even the thought of it? It sounds like someting one could assume after watching Jurassic Park though, so hey, maybe all the true answers are in Hollywood. No wait, that can't be right, Hollywood was partly responsible for The Passion (which is advertised on THIS very website), so that can't be true either. Man, I can sense your frustration.

 

I posted a few very lengthy (again, sorry Tormod) posts, detailing the issues I found with evolution. You didn't respond to any of my claims or questions, so I'm guessing you are lumping me in with all of the others. Too bad. See, I know how you feel, because I was there. And everyone trying to convince you of the existence of God is truly wasting their time. You won't be convinced by science, I know I wasn't. I DID queston science, and evolution, and that led me to some hard answers. Maybe you'll ask the tougher questions yourself. Maybe not. But again - it's not a head thing. It's a heart thing. Not to say you don't have a heart, I believe you do. I also believe you have a soul, regardless of what Tim implies. And I'm not going to try to 'save' you. But I encourage you to keep searching 'science'. Yes, SCIENCE has been wonderful, saving our children and making the world better. Praise Allah (or God, or whomever) indeed! What would I do without my internet? Well, I'd have no GOOGLE or EBAY and that would truly be a tragedy. But for every horrible thing you can attribute to God (or belief in Him), I just have to look in the mirror for proof of His existence.

 

I AM. I was a selfish, conceited, drunk, amoral, psuedo-intellectual pain in the butt. I could never have changed myself. It wasn't in me to change, I liked being horrible. I liked drinking and slutting around, it was fun. I liked to talk down to people, because

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

<blockquote>Quote

<hr>Freethinker, I beg to differ with you, again. And hopefully, I won't get booted for deigning to disagree. I promise not to call you a psuedo-intellectual person, even though you have been routinely more rude and/or condescending to people that do not accept your view of evolution.

 

1) it is not MY view of Evolution. It is the view of the vast majority of scientists and virtually EVERY scientist that is peer reviewed in a direcltly related field.

 

2) I try very hard to not directly call another poster a name. I will attack any individual viewpoint and put whatever label I feel is most justified. Saying an argument or assertion is, say, postmoderistic drivel is nothing like calling an individual a postmodernistic driveller.

 

<I>I will break my responses into as logical of a division as I can to keep each as short as possible</I>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a short intermission, and explanation.

 

I had stated before that the level of discourse I had mainly encountered here is far from Scientific or Rational, Intellectually Honest Discourse. I stand by that.

 

I will respond to those that address me, as long as they show the intentional to have an intellectually honest discourse. That means they will provide VALID VERIFYABLE support for contentions and assestions. If you want to claim some outside agent, such as a god, is involved with an issue under discussion, it is your responsibility to first prove such an agent exists, and if needed, what mechanism this agent can use to allow for the claimed intervention.

 

If you are not capable of this simple structure, you are NOT interested in intellectually honest discourse and I will stop wasting my time.

 

Do not try to twist this, or confuse it with my not being open to ideas and concepts of any type. But if you want to open a door, you need the right key. And FACTS are the right key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>Quote

<hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>IrishEyes</b><hr>...faith in your religion of evolution. And yes, it is a religion </i><hr><hr></blockquote>

Didn't I address this previously? Perhaps elsewhere here?

 

<b>Religion:</b><i> Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice,</i> WWWebster. I could paste the entier, much longer def, but suffice it to say virtually every def given includes words such as <i>service and worship of God or the supernatural... institutionalized system of religious attitudes...</i>

 

Show us all the <i>god, supernatural, ...</I> elements of Evolution.

 

Not surprisingly, this post started out with fallacies.

 

Ad hominem - trying to degrade the assertion by calling it names, by trying to pretend it is a "religion"

 

Straw Man - to misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily,

 

<blockquote>Quote

<hr>Whether or not you will acknowedge God<hr></blockquote>

 

As soon as you provide ANY proof, ANY REASON to acknowledge a god, I will gladly embrace it.

 

Until you do:

 

1) stop pretending there is one

2) stop trying to use it to degrade my POV. (another ad hominem)

3) stop trying to use it as an excuse/ reason/ proof...

 

So far you and everyone ese has failed completely to establish the existence of a god enough for it to be accepted into the discussion. It's just another fallacy, Petitio principii (Begging the question).

 

 

<hr>you should realize that teaching evolution in school is teaching more religion than most people get in their church. Only three of the world's 'main' religions teach an absolutist view of creation, that involves no evolution.<hr>

 

I won't bother questioning your assertion about who is and who is not a "main" religion or what they or do nt teach. It is irrelevant to whether Evolution is correct or is a religion. (Petitio principii again)

 

Evolution,is a SCIENTIFIC FACT AND THEORY. It is a FACT as we can easily find many examples of evolution around us continually. It is also currently the single best THEORY available to provide an understanding of and make predictions for the variety of life on earth and how it can be genetically manipulated.

 

This is EXACTLY what SCIENCE is. Evolution is far better understood and supported than either the Theories of Light (particle/wave duality ...) or Gravity. Biology is completely based on Evolution. Biology means nothing whithout it.

 

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Dobzhansky, Theodosius (one of the most highly regarded American geneticists and zoologists)

 

Unlike the hack Math Teacher that someone tried to use as a reference elsewhere.

 

http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/guides/glass/dobzhan.htm

 

"Biology simply cannot be taught well without covering evolution, Students who understand the process of evolutionary change are able to grasp its vital practical consequences, such as how bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics. A failure to teach effectively about evolution will rob students of a precious opportunity -- to understand how life on Earth has developed and to appreciate their own place in the world." Donald Kennedy, Bing Professor of Environmental Studies, Stanford University,

 

"Evolution is the central organizing principle that biologists use to understand the world. If we want our children to have a good grasp of science, we need to help teachers, parents, school administrators, and policy-makers understand both evolution and the nature of science... Teaching evolution is essential for explaining some of the most fundamental concepts of science, Like all scientific theories, evolution explains natural phenomena by building logically on observations that can be tested and analy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: IrishEyesYou've ranted about Tim and his lack of proof. I have repeatedly said that I have no positive scientific poof of God, but that I had evidences of the weak position of evolution for the "explanation of the diversity of life found on earth".

 

In the previous post you will notice the difference between my posts and others. Above I make an assertion, that Biology is nothing without Evolution. Yes I can throw out assertions with the best of them. But then, I don't require you to just ACCEPT what i asserted, I provided FACTS to support it. I gave verifyable sources with established credentials in directly related fields.

 

Above YOU make an assertion.

 

I had evidences of the weak position of evolution for the "explanation of the diversity of life found on earth".

 

I'd love to review them. But you don;t offer anything to review. Instead you follow with another assertion.

 

Also, as you ridiculed others with your semantics regarding evolution and abiogenesis, you still failed to refute my claim that abiogenesis can be disproven MATHEMATICALLY.

 

I do not recall ever seeing a mathematical formula in these discussions.

 

So, if abiogenesis can be disproven, and we have all been enlightened that evolution does not explain the origins of life, please explain what does.

 

1) IF abiogenesis can be disproven... all that is proven is that abiogenesis is wrong.

2) as I have tried to explain many times before, try to follow, Abiogensis is the theory of "spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter". Evolution says nothing about it and Evolution does not require Abiogenesis. In fact Evolution is accepted and is fit into many god beliefs, including most of the major mono-theistic ones.

3) Thus the accuracy of Evolution in explaining "the diversity of life found on earth" is mutually exclusive of Abiogenesis.

 

But I would love to examine your claimed proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: IrishEyesThe process of one species changing to another has never been proven.

 

I had to wait till I got to my home PC to get this info.

 

one species changing to another

 

is called "Speciation"- "the process of biological species formation" WWWebster

 

The basic test of speciation is whether there can be succcesfuly progeny. Can the two specimines procreate? A dog and a fish can't have progeny.

 

As evolution is drift over time, when two branches of a species drift far enough apart, they can no longer have progeny. A dog and a fish, which share common ancestry WAY back (as do we all) can't have progeny.

 

Kilias et. al.(1980) observed speciation in the fruit flies Drosophilia melanogaster fertile, interbreeding populations were raised in isolated populations under different temperature and humidity conditions. Attempts to interbreed flies raised under different conditions produced positive assortment mating and sterile hybrids. This was not observed in isolated populations raised under the same conditions. "A multifactorial investigation of speciation theory using Drosophilia melanogaster", Evolution, 34, 730-7.

 

Speciation was found to have occurred between a laboratory population of lab rat worms (Nereis acuminata) grown from specimens collected in Long Beach California in 1964, and wild specimens collected from two populations at the same location between 1986 and 1991. The latter two populations showed significant interbreeding to produce fertile offspring, but the laboratory population proved unable to breed with the wild-types, indicating development of a new species. Weinberg, et. al. (1992) "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory" Evolution, 46, 1214-1220.

 

Now you can no longer claim it has never been proven. These are just two of MANY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: IrishEyesI posted a few very lengthy (again, sorry Tormod) posts, detailing the issues I found with evolution. You didn't respond to any of my claims or questions, so I'm guessing you are lumping me in with all of the others. Too bad.

 

I believe, if you read my post to Tormod, that I acknowledged his comments about the thread being pulled too far and specifically to your post. That I had read his reply before I got to replying to your post and relented to his authority.

 

But if memory serves, I do not recall seeing anything outside of the style of assertions lacking specific valid support and that was what my reply would have contained.

 

See, I know how you feel, because I was there.

 

Why thank you for being so condesending. I was like you at one time also. Then I got a better education. There, did that help my assertions become more accurate? I would appreciate it if you stopped the ad hominems.

 

And everyone trying to convince you of the existence of God is truly wasting their time. You won't be convinced by science,

 

Here, you try to assert that SCIENCE was actually the approach/ method that was used! We all know that the ONLY explanation given by everyone is "I don't have proof, but I KNOW...". There is NOTHING that has been presented so far that even approximates a Scientific approach.

 

This is, again, the crux of the problem. I had posted a short notice about people sticking to some minimum standard of discussion honesty. I keep hearing about proofs and facts. But I never see any. I spend my time trying to explain why what people think are facts, are mainly fallacies. Or those that might actually qualify as valid, do not prove what they claim to prove.

 

You say you have all this proof. The best way to actually deal with it here is if you would post one or two, with supporting validation, and we can explore them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freethinker, I think you must be my first husband in disguise! LOL!!

 

"I'd love to review them. But you don;t offer anything to review. Instead you follow with another assertion...

I posted on Friday, and Tormod replied. I guess you missed that. As it is already posted, I will not waste the space to post it again, but my evidences are there, if you'd care to look.

 

I do not recall ever seeing a mathematical formula in these discussions...

I also made a statement that this was a project that my husband completed, and I would be happy to have it available if anyone wanted it. You did not request it. If you would like to see it, I will be happy to have it posted.

 

1) IF abiogenesis can be disproven... all that is proven is that abiogenesis is wrong.

2) as I have tried to explain many times before, try to follow, Abiogensis is the theory of "spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter". Evolution says nothing about it and Evolution does not require Abiogenesis. In fact Evolution is accepted and is fit into many god beliefs, including most of the major mono-theistic ones.

3) Thus the accuracy of Evolution in explaining "the diversity of life found on earth" is mutually exclusive of Abiogenesis."

I agree with you on this. I said that already! Why are you trying to prove it again, when I already admitted that this was true? I was disagreeing with you splitting hairs between 'evolution' and 'abiogenesis'. Not everyone is familiar with the term abiogenesis. You commented that because someone said 'evolution' when they should have said 'abiogenesis', they were incorrect.

Also, you comment on 'most of the major mono-theistic ones (religions)' here as incorporating evolution, yet made a disparaging remark about my use of 'three of the main ones (religions) being strictly creationist' earlier. The three I was referring to were conservative Chrisitainity, conservative Judaism, and conservative Islam. And yes, many of the liberal branches of these religions now incorporate some form of evolution. Are you ok with religions that incorporate evolution?

 

is called "Speciation"- "the process of biological species formation" WWWebster

Again, semantics. If I had said 'speciation' , the reply would have been "well, which is it, speciation or evolution?" I know what speciation is. Also, your specific example of fruitflies was already addressed. That was in one of my very first posts. I said, basically, 'give me a specific example...please do not use the moths or the fruitflies.' I am familiar with the peppered moth experiment later referred to by Tormod as an example of evolution. I responded that at the beginning there were peppered moths, at the end there were peppered moths, where is the evolution? The fruit fly experiment was much the same. In the beginning, there were fruit flies, at the end there were fruit flies - horribly mutated due to science, YES, but still fruit flies. I am familiar with both studies. The lab rat worms (sorry, that just sounds YUCKY!) I am not familiar with, and will research that - Thanks for the info!! You said these were "two of MANY". Do you have a list? I'd love to see it! I'm being serious, if you have more 'proof' - please share!!

 

Why thank you for being so condesending. I was like you at one time also. Then I got a better education. There, did that help my assertions become more accurate? I would appreciate it if you stopped the ad hominems.

Really not necessary! If you took my statements as condescending, then you are much more sensitive than you appear here. A better education is very helpful, but not necessary. I was not condescending to you. I WAS like you, very sure that evolution was correct, and God was a myth. I explained that in another post also - Questions led me to science, science led me to evolution, evolution led me to more questions, which led me back to creation, and back to God. Full circle. Why did I question God? I saw the hypocrisy in my church, and

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Freethinker, I think you must be my first husband in disguise! LOL!!

 

You only WISH!!! :-)

 

<i>"I'd love to review them. But you don;t offer anything to review. Instead you follow with another assertion... </i> I posted on Friday, and Tormod replied. I guess you missed that. As it is already posted, I will not waste the space to post it again, but my evidences are there, if you'd care to look.

 

OK, I check EVERY POST from you on this thread on Friday April 2nd. There is NOT A SINGLE FACT/ PROOF offered in a SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

 

Oh ya, lots of empty claims and unsupported assertions. Lots of meaningless attacks on true science, but ABOLSUTELY NOTHING of substance to review and comment on.

 

If you have, if you are capable of presenting VALID SUBSTANTIATED FACTS, I'd love to review them.

 

But you have FAILED to do so so far.

 

<i>I do not recall ever seeing a mathematical formula in these discussions... </i> I also made a statement that this was a project that my husband completed, and I would be happy to have it available if anyone wanted it. You did not request it. If you would like to see it, I will be happy to have it posted.

 

And again we see the methodology used here. CLAIM to have things, but FAIL to actually provide them.

 

Then LIE about it:

 

<i> 1) IF abiogenesis can be disproven... all that is proven is that abiogenesis is wrong.

2) as I have tried to explain many times before, try to follow, Abiogensis is the theory of "spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter". Evolution says nothing about it and Evolution does not require Abiogenesis. In fact Evolution is accepted and is fit into many god beliefs, including most of the major mono-theistic ones.

3) Thus the accuracy of Evolution in explaining "the diversity of life found on earth" is mutually exclusive of Abiogenesis." </i>

 

I agree with you on this. I said that already!

 

NO YOU DIDN'T! What YOU POSTED was:

 

So, if abiogenesis can be disproven, and we have all been enlightened that evolution does not explain the origins of life

 

You even (intentionally?) neglected to include this part in your reply becuase it would expose your attempt to hide what you ACTUALLY posted.

 

I was disagreeing with you splitting hairs between 'evolution' and 'abiogenesis'. Not everyone is familiar with the term abiogenesis.

 

Splitting hairs? They are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THEORIES addressing COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. The only ones that try to tie them together are Creationists that are either ignorant of these facts or INTENTIONALLY trying to mislead others that ARE ignorant of these facts.

 

You commented that because someone said 'evolution' when they should have said 'abiogenesis', they were incorrect.

 

And your confusion comes in where? When someone claims that disputing the factuality of Abiogenesis disproves Evolution, they are INCORRECT! Which of the above catagories do you fit in? Are you IGNORANT of the mutual exclusivity of Abiogenesis and Evolution, or intentionally promoting the ignorance to try and support your claims?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Also, you comment on 'most of the major mono-theistic ones (religions)' here as incorporating evolution, yet made a disparaging remark about my use of 'three of the main ones (religions) being strictly creationist' earlier. The three I was referring to were conservative Chrisitainity, conservative Judaism, and conservative Islam.

 

This is why factual, reasoned discussions with believers is so difficult. They are willing to toss out baseless assertions that lack any substance and act as if just by making the claim, they must be true...

 

Let's look at this claim

 

'three of the main ones (religions) being strictly creationist' earlier. The three I was referring to were conservative Chrisitainity, conservative Judaism, and conservative Islam.

 

The $6 million National Jewish Population Survey 2000-01 found that only 33% of all households belonging to a synagogue affiliated with a Conservative synagogue.

 

In Cristianity, it is hard to guess which may or may not be lumped into "Conservative" if any number of people are asked. But let's look at some general stats. ARIS (American Religious Identification Survey) the most extensive religious survey ever done on religious affiliation in the US shows:

 

Catholic 24.5%

Baptist 16.3%

Methodist 6.8%

 

Add some of the other more liberal denominations and you easily pass the 50% point.

 

Few "Conservative" Christian sects acheive even measurable levels.

 

Thus, like so many of your other assertions, it does not stand up to FACTS.

 

So we are not surprised that you failed once more to supply FACTS to support your assertion.

 

conservative Chrisitainity, conservative Judaism, and conservative Islam.

 

do NOT represent

 

'three of the main ones (religions)

 

Once again I am forced into exposing fallacies and refuting false information rather than being able to be involved in intellectually honest discourse. If you fail to move your posts into a reasoned discourse, I will stop responding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

is called "Speciation"- "the process of biological species formation" WWWebster Again, semantics. If I had said 'speciation' , the reply would have been "well, which is it, speciation or evolution?"

 

And now back to "Straw Man" fallacy and ad hominems. Once more we see a complete lack of substance. Relying instead on false and misleading information and attacks on the poster rather than the facts presented.

 

In my post, I provided a well established (WWWebster) definition for speciation. This defintion was provided along with SPECIFIC EXPERIMENTATION which PROVES Speciation in controlled lab test. That you do not personally like them, is NOT proof of their being wrong.

 

I know what speciation is. Also, your specific example of fruitflies was already addressed. That was in one of my very first posts. I said, basically, 'give me a specific example...please do not use the moths or the fruitflies.' I am familiar with the peppered moth experiment later referred to by Tormod as an example of evolution.

 

1) the "peppered moth" example has NEVER been used as proof of Speciation. As with the intentional misinformation of pretending Evolution and Abiogenesis are directly linked, only Creationists pretend the peppered moth is connected to speciation.

 

2) the ONLY attack that Creationists legitimately have against the peppered moth example is the pictures used. The claims is that dead moths were pinned to trees for the photos. This is used to discredit the peppered moth as a legitimate example. While actually all it does is show that for the creation of text books, some times pictures are staged to reinact a previously preformed observation. YES the moths were pinned to the trees so pictures could be taken to show this process. The landings of both Spirit and Opportunity were show thru computer simulation because no cameras were around to take actual photos. This does not prove that these did NOT LAND ON MARS!

 

I responded that at the beginning there were peppered moths, at the end there were peppered moths, where is the evolution?

 

If you are ignorant of the specifics of the peppered moth example, why are you claiming they are not valid?

 

I suggest you get educated on the topic before trying to refute it.

 

If your interest IS to get an education, I suggest you stop pretending to KNOW and instead ASK for the education. I would be pleased to EDUCATE you on the REALITY of Evolution.

 

The fruit fly experiment was much the same. In the beginning, there were fruit flies, at the end there were fruit flies - horribly mutated due to science, YES, but still fruit flies.

 

SPECIES. SPECIATION. Once more, you merely expose your ignorance of the subject and the well established termonology used. Or one wonders again if it is not ignorance which can be corrected by education) or an intentionally erffort to mislead.

 

You said these were "two of MANY". Do you have a list? I'd love to see it! I'm being serious, if you have more 'proof' - please share!!

 

See? Once more, unlike your side, when asked for PROOF, I am willing to produce it.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5

 

5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation

5.1 Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization.

5.1.1 Plants

5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)

5.1.1.3 Tragopogon

5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica

5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)

5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis

5.1.1.7 Brassica

5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)

5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)

 

5.2 Speciations in Plant Speci

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

...your specific example of fruitflies was already addressed. That was in one of my very first posts. I said, basically, 'give me a specific example...please do not use the moths or the fruitflies.' ...ou said these were "two of MANY". Do you have a list? I'd love to see it! I'm being serious, if you have more 'proof' - please share!!

 

Well? I gave you a list. Then you disappear. We are waitiing for you to show how ALL of these are WRONG. If you can't, do you have the integrety to admit you can't?

 

We're waiting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: rileyj

"I check EVERY POST from you on this thread on Friday April 2nd. There is NOT A SINGLE FACT/ PROOF offered in a SINGLE ONE OF THEM."

 

were do you get the time?

 

Fri Apr 02, 2004 11:47 AM

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

NONE!

 

Fri Apr 02, 2004 4:22 PM

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

NONE!

 

Fri Apr 02, 2004 11:17 PM

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

NONE!

 

That's it.

 

There that didn't take much time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...