|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Budikka666
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:50 pm Post subject: Adam, Eve, & Noah Disproven |
 |
|
Creationists have no scientific theory to explain the distribution and
diversity of life on Earth. Neither do the so-called intelligent so-
called design advocates.
People argue that you can't use science to prove or disprove something
supernatural like a god, but where that god's purported activities
produce physical results, then yes, you can test it scientifically,
and when it fails the test, it disproves the "theory" behind it.
This itself doesn't disprove the god, but it does disprove claims that
a god inspired those who wrote the relevant portions of the Bible.
Unless that god was deceitful and deliberately misleading.
Both these blind faiths (creation and ID) are based on the religious
mythology of the Bible, so it's possible to come up with a testable
theory regarding aspects of the creation.
One such testable theory is this: If the very first humans to arrive
on Earth did so in the Middle East just 6,000 or so years ago (as
Bible chronology demands), and about 1,500 years after this, the human
race went through a bottle-neck because of a global flood (as Bible
mythology demands), this creation and bottle-neck should be reflected
in the human genome.
It's not. Bible story disproven. Adam, Eve, and Noah disproven.
The current issue of Scientific American (July 2008) has an article on
starting on page 56, titled "Traces of a Distant Past" which reports
on scientific studies published last February in _Science_ and in
_Nature_ which examined half a million single nucleotide polymorphisms
(SNPs) from the genomes of 1,000 people in 51 different population
groups.
Such studies are ongoing, looking for finer and finer resolution, but
what it shows so far is that humans originated in east Africa, exactly
as the fossil record shows, and spread from there into the Middle
East, Europe, Asia, and finally, North, then South America.
It categorically does *not* show humans originating in the Middle east
or bottle-necking and re-originating from the mountains of Ararat.
Put those myths to rest.
Budikka |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
MarkA
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:38 am Post subject: Re: Adam, Eve, & Noah Disproven |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:50:05 -0700, Budikka666 wrote:
| Quote: |
Creationists have no scientific theory to explain the distribution and
diversity of life on Earth. Neither do the so-called intelligent so-
called design advocates.
People argue that you can't use science to prove or disprove something
supernatural like a god, but where that god's purported activities
produce physical results, then yes, you can test it scientifically,
and when it fails the test, it disproves the "theory" behind it.
This itself doesn't disprove the god, but it does disprove claims that
a god inspired those who wrote the relevant portions of the Bible.
Unless that god was deceitful and deliberately misleading.
Both these blind faiths (creation and ID) are based on the religious
mythology of the Bible, so it's possible to come up with a testable
theory regarding aspects of the creation.
One such testable theory is this: If the very first humans to arrive
on Earth did so in the Middle East just 6,000 or so years ago (as
Bible chronology demands), and about 1,500 years after this, the human
race went through a bottle-neck because of a global flood (as Bible
mythology demands), this creation and bottle-neck should be reflected
in the human genome.
It's not. Bible story disproven. Adam, Eve, and Noah disproven.
The current issue of Scientific American (July 2008) has an article on
starting on page 56, titled "Traces of a Distant Past" which reports
on scientific studies published last February in _Science_ and in
_Nature_ which examined half a million single nucleotide polymorphisms
(SNPs) from the genomes of 1,000 people in 51 different population
groups.
Such studies are ongoing, looking for finer and finer resolution, but
what it shows so far is that humans originated in east Africa, exactly
as the fossil record shows, and spread from there into the Middle
East, Europe, Asia, and finally, North, then South America.
It categorically does *not* show humans originating in the Middle east
or bottle-necking and re-originating from the mountains of Ararat.
Put those myths to rest.
Budikka
|
Well, if Satan can bury fossils to deceive us, AND he can plant ancient
myths that predict the life and times of Jesus long before His
arrival to deceive us, he can certainly fudge the human genome to hide the
fact that we all descended from a group of 7 humans about 4,000 years ago!
In fact, I'd be willing to bet that ANY piece of physical evidence you can
produce can be reconciled with biblical literalism by using the old "the
Gods made it LOOK that way to fool us" argument.
It just goes to show: you can't trust physical evidence or logical
inference, but you CAN trust a self-contradictory collection of Bronze Age
myths, that has been re-written, re-edited, re-translated, and
re-interpreted over and over again for thousands of years, by people with
very specific and varying agendas. You just have to know where to put
your trust!
--
MarkA
(This space temporarily unavailable)
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Locke
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:14 am Post subject: Re: Adam, Eve, & Noah Disproven |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:38:34 -0400, MarkA <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:50:05 -0700, Budikka666 wrote:
Creationists have no scientific theory to explain the distribution and
diversity of life on Earth. Neither do the so-called intelligent so-
called design advocates.
People argue that you can't use science to prove or disprove something
supernatural like a god, but where that god's purported activities
produce physical results, then yes, you can test it scientifically,
and when it fails the test, it disproves the "theory" behind it.
This itself doesn't disprove the god, but it does disprove claims that
a god inspired those who wrote the relevant portions of the Bible.
Unless that god was deceitful and deliberately misleading.
Both these blind faiths (creation and ID) are based on the religious
mythology of the Bible, so it's possible to come up with a testable
theory regarding aspects of the creation.
One such testable theory is this: If the very first humans to arrive
on Earth did so in the Middle East just 6,000 or so years ago (as
Bible chronology demands), and about 1,500 years after this, the human
race went through a bottle-neck because of a global flood (as Bible
mythology demands), this creation and bottle-neck should be reflected
in the human genome.
It's not. Bible story disproven. Adam, Eve, and Noah disproven.
The current issue of Scientific American (July 2008) has an article on
starting on page 56, titled "Traces of a Distant Past" which reports
on scientific studies published last February in _Science_ and in
_Nature_ which examined half a million single nucleotide polymorphisms
(SNPs) from the genomes of 1,000 people in 51 different population
groups.
Such studies are ongoing, looking for finer and finer resolution, but
what it shows so far is that humans originated in east Africa, exactly
as the fossil record shows, and spread from there into the Middle
East, Europe, Asia, and finally, North, then South America.
It categorically does *not* show humans originating in the Middle east
or bottle-necking and re-originating from the mountains of Ararat.
Put those myths to rest.
Budikka
Well, if Satan can bury fossils to deceive us, AND he can plant ancient
myths that predict the life and times of Jesus long before His
arrival to deceive us, he can certainly fudge the human genome to hide the
fact that we all descended from a group of 7 humans about 4,000 years ago!
In fact, I'd be willing to bet that ANY piece of physical evidence you can
produce can be reconciled with biblical literalism by using the old "the
Gods made it LOOK that way to fool us" argument.
It just goes to show: you can't trust physical evidence or logical
inference, but you CAN trust a self-contradictory collection of Bronze Age
myths, that has been re-written, re-edited, re-translated, and
re-interpreted over and over again for thousands of years, by people with
very specific and varying agendas. You just have to know where to put
your trust!
...since you mentioned trust. |
“We can eat all the fruit in the garden, except the fruit from one
tree. That tree belongs to God,” Eve replied . "God told us that if
we were to eat the fruit from that tree we would die," said Eve.
Satan replied with a laughing jeer, “ You will not die, but you will
become very wise like God Himself. You will be able to tell good from
evil.”
Odd...the serpent was telling the truth and God was the liar. So who
was the good guy here ? I'll pick the serpent.
"There is not enough love and kindness in the world
to give any of it away to imaginary beings." - Friederich Nietzsche |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Grinder
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:54 am Post subject: Re: Adam, Eve, & Noah Disproven |
|
|
MarkA wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:50:05 -0700, Budikka666 wrote:
Creationists have no scientific theory to explain the distribution and
diversity of life on Earth. Neither do the so-called intelligent so-
called design advocates.
People argue that you can't use science to prove or disprove something
supernatural like a god, but where that god's purported activities
produce physical results, then yes, you can test it scientifically,
and when it fails the test, it disproves the "theory" behind it.
This itself doesn't disprove the god, but it does disprove claims that
a god inspired those who wrote the relevant portions of the Bible.
Unless that god was deceitful and deliberately misleading.
Both these blind faiths (creation and ID) are based on the religious
mythology of the Bible, so it's possible to come up with a testable
theory regarding aspects of the creation.
One such testable theory is this: If the very first humans to arrive
on Earth did so in the Middle East just 6,000 or so years ago (as
Bible chronology demands), and about 1,500 years after this, the human
race went through a bottle-neck because of a global flood (as Bible
mythology demands), this creation and bottle-neck should be reflected
in the human genome.
It's not. Bible story disproven. Adam, Eve, and Noah disproven.
The current issue of Scientific American (July 2008) has an article on
starting on page 56, titled "Traces of a Distant Past" which reports
on scientific studies published last February in _Science_ and in
_Nature_ which examined half a million single nucleotide polymorphisms
(SNPs) from the genomes of 1,000 people in 51 different population
groups.
Such studies are ongoing, looking for finer and finer resolution, but
what it shows so far is that humans originated in east Africa, exactly
as the fossil record shows, and spread from there into the Middle
East, Europe, Asia, and finally, North, then South America.
It categorically does *not* show humans originating in the Middle east
or bottle-necking and re-originating from the mountains of Ararat.
Put those myths to rest.
Budikka
Well, if Satan can bury fossils to deceive us, AND he can plant ancient
myths that predict the life and times of Jesus long before His
arrival to deceive us, he can certainly fudge the human genome to hide the
fact that we all descended from a group of 7 humans about 4,000 years ago!
In fact, I'd be willing to bet that ANY piece of physical evidence you can
produce can be reconciled with biblical literalism by using the old "the
Gods made it LOOK that way to fool us" argument.
It just goes to show: you can't trust physical evidence or logical
inference, but you CAN trust a self-contradictory collection of Bronze Age
myths, that has been re-written, re-edited, re-translated, and
re-interpreted over and over again for thousands of years, by people with
very specific and varying agendas. You just have to know where to put
your trust!
|
It's a shame you didn't get to me with this when I was 7. That, along
with some threats about how I'll burn in hell, forever, if I don't
believe those myths might have made a Christian of me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97NFNXk8aFc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Budikka666
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:27 pm Post subject: Re: Adam, Eve, & Noah Disproven |
|
|
On Jun 29, 5:38 pm, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:50:05 -0700, Budikka666 wrote:
Creationists have no scientific theory to explain the distribution and
diversity of life on Earth. Neither do the so-called intelligent so-
called design advocates.
People argue that you can't use science to prove or disprove something
supernatural like a god, but where that god's purported activities
produce physical results, then yes, you can test it scientifically,
and when it fails the test, it disproves the "theory" behind it.
This itself doesn't disprove the god, but it does disprove claims that
a god inspired those who wrote the relevant portions of the Bible.
Unless that god was deceitful and deliberately misleading.
Both these blind faiths (creation and ID) are based on the religious
mythology of the Bible, so it's possible to come up with a testable
theory regarding aspects of the creation.
One such testable theory is this: If the very first humans to arrive
on Earth did so in the Middle East just 6,000 or so years ago (as
Bible chronology demands), and about 1,500 years after this, the human
race went through a bottle-neck because of a global flood (as Bible
mythology demands), this creation and bottle-neck should be reflected
in the human genome.
It's not. Bible story disproven. Adam, Eve, and Noah disproven.
The current issue of Scientific American (July 2008) has an article on
starting on page 56, titled "Traces of a Distant Past" which reports
on scientific studies published last February in _Science_ and in
_Nature_ which examined half a million single nucleotide polymorphisms
(SNPs) from the genomes of 1,000 people in 51 different population
groups.
Such studies are ongoing, looking for finer and finer resolution, but
what it shows so far is that humans originated in east Africa, exactly
as the fossil record shows, and spread from there into the Middle
East, Europe, Asia, and finally, North, then South America.
It categorically does *not* show humans originating in the Middle east
or bottle-necking and re-originating from the mountains of Ararat.
Put those myths to rest.
Budikka
Well, if Satan can bury fossils to deceive us, AND he can plant ancient
myths that predict the life and times of Jesus long before His
arrival to deceive us, he can certainly fudge the human genome to hide the
fact that we all descended from a group of 7 humans about 4,000 years ago!
In fact, I'd be willing to bet that ANY piece of physical evidence you can
produce can be reconciled with biblical literalism by using the old "the
Gods made it LOOK that way to fool us" argument.
It just goes to show: you can't trust physical evidence or logical
inference, but you CAN trust a self-contradictory collection of Bronze Age
myths, that has been re-written, re-edited, re-translated, and
re-interpreted over and over again for thousands of years, by people with
very specific and varying agendas. You just have to know where to put
your trust!
--
MarkA
(This space temporarily unavailable)
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
|
Damn! damn! and double damn! I never thought of that!
Budikka |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ken
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:33 pm Post subject: Re: Adam, Eve, & Noah Disproven |
|
|
On Jul 2, 6:43 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
BWAHAHAHAHAHA.......My work here is done..... ;)
|
Not quite yet.
You may still need to castrate/sterilize a couple of the more rabid
creationuts around here to prevent any possibility that their mutant
DNA will ever pollute our normal human genome |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
SkyEyes
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:38 pm Post subject: Re: Adam, Eve, & Noah Disproven |
|
|
On Jul 3, 8:08 am, Rod <n...@noshapewayorform.net> wrote:
<Snippage>
| Quote: |
Well, if Satan can bury fossils
Bury fossils ??? Do you even have an inkling of what you are saying
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
FOOL ! Find out how fossils become fossils ! What kind of a moron are
you ??
|
You know, if you send that malfunctioning irony meter to EAC Irony
Meters "R" Us, they'll fix it for you.
Just make sure to include a self-addressed return label and postage.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rod
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:08 pm Post subject: Re: Adam, Eve, & Noah Disproven |
|
|
MarkA wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:50:05 -0700, Budikka666 wrote:
Creationists have no scientific theory to explain the distribution and
diversity of life on Earth. Neither do the so-called intelligent so-
called design advocates.
People argue that you can't use science to prove or disprove something
supernatural like a god, but where that god's purported activities
produce physical results, then yes, you can test it scientifically,
and when it fails the test, it disproves the "theory" behind it.
This itself doesn't disprove the god, but it does disprove claims that
a god inspired those who wrote the relevant portions of the Bible.
Unless that god was deceitful and deliberately misleading.
Both these blind faiths (creation and ID) are based on the religious
mythology of the Bible, so it's possible to come up with a testable
theory regarding aspects of the creation.
One such testable theory is this: If the very first humans to arrive
on Earth did so in the Middle East just 6,000 or so years ago (as
Bible chronology demands), and about 1,500 years after this, the human
race went through a bottle-neck because of a global flood (as Bible
mythology demands), this creation and bottle-neck should be reflected
in the human genome.
It's not. Bible story disproven. Adam, Eve, and Noah disproven.
The current issue of Scientific American (July 2008) has an article on
starting on page 56, titled "Traces of a Distant Past" which reports
on scientific studies published last February in _Science_ and in
_Nature_ which examined half a million single nucleotide polymorphisms
(SNPs) from the genomes of 1,000 people in 51 different population
groups.
Such studies are ongoing, looking for finer and finer resolution, but
what it shows so far is that humans originated in east Africa, exactly
as the fossil record shows, and spread from there into the Middle
East, Europe, Asia, and finally, North, then South America.
It categorically does *not* show humans originating in the Middle east
or bottle-necking and re-originating from the mountains of Ararat.
Put those myths to rest.
Budikka
Well, if Satan can bury fossils
|
Bury fossils ??? Do you even have an inkling of what you are saying
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
FOOL ! Find out how fossils become fossils ! What kind of a moron are
you ??
to deceive us, AND he can plant ancient
| Quote: |
myths that predict the life and times of Jesus long before His
arrival to deceive us, he can certainly fudge the human genome to hide the
fact that we all descended from a group of 7 humans about 4,000 years ago!
In fact, I'd be willing to bet that ANY piece of physical evidence you can
produce can be reconciled with biblical literalism by using the old "the
Gods made it LOOK that way to fool us" argument.
It just goes to show: you can't trust physical evidence or logical
inference, but you CAN trust a self-contradictory collection of Bronze Age
myths, that has been re-written, re-edited, re-translated, and
re-interpreted over and over again for thousands of years, by people with
very specific and varying agendas. You just have to know where to put
your trust!
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cary Kittrell
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:16 pm Post subject: Re: Adam, Eve, & Noah Disproven |
|
|
In article <54583ea2-cfa5-4661-b10b-bf1e7c5dde0a@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com> SkyEyes <skyeyes9@cox.net> writes:
| Quote: |
On Jul 3, 8:08=A0am, Rod <n...@noshapewayorform.net> wrote:
MarkA wrote:
Snippage
Well, if Satan can bury fossils
=A0 =A0Bury fossils ??? Do you even have an inkling of what you are sayin=
g
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
=A0 =A0FOOL ! Find out how fossils become fossils ! What kind of a moron =
are
you ??
You know, if you send that malfunctioning irony meter to EAC Irony
Meters "R" Us, they'll fix it for you.
Just make sure to include a self-addressed return label and postage.
|
New Scientist always has adverts for a book titled "How to Fossilize
Your Hamster: And Other Amazing Experiments for the Armchair
Scientist".
There some things, doctor, that man is not meant to know...
-- cary |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
SkyEyes
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:29 pm Post subject: Re: Adam, Eve, & Noah Disproven |
|
|
On Jul 3, 4:16 pm, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <54583ea2-cfa5-4661-b10b-bf1e7c5dd...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups..com> SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> writes:
On Jul 3, 8:08=A0am, Rod <n...@noshapewayorform.net> wrote:
MarkA wrote:
Snippage
Well, if Satan can bury fossils
=A0 =A0Bury fossils ??? Do you even have an inkling of what you are sayin> > g
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
=A0 =A0FOOL ! Find out how fossils become fossils ! What kind of a moron > > are
you ??
You know, if you send that malfunctioning irony meter to EAC Irony
Meters "R" Us, they'll fix it for you.
Just make sure to include a self-addressed return label and postage.
New Scientist always has adverts for a book titled "How to Fossilize
Your Hamster: And Other Amazing Experiments for the Armchair
Scientist".
|
Is one *required* to use a cute, personable mammal? Might one use,
say, a gecko?
| Quote: |
There some things, doctor, that man is not meant to know...
|
Which is why there's so much that we women don't tell you guys.
;->
Brenda |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cary Kittrell
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:37 pm Post subject: Re: Adam, Eve, & Noah Disproven |
|
|
In article <9cdbb2eb-f3b7-4f50-a750-69cb597ad5e2@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com> SkyEyes <skyeyes9@cox.net> writes:
| Quote: |
On Jul 3, 4:16=A0pm, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <54583ea2-cfa5-4661-b10b-bf1e7c5dd...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups=
.com> SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> writes:
On Jul 3, 8:08=3DA0am, Rod <n...@noshapewayorform.net> wrote:
MarkA wrote:
Snippage
Well, if Satan can bury fossils
=3DA0 =3DA0Bury fossils ??? Do you even have an inkling of what you a=
re sayin=3D
g
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????=
???
=3DA0 =3DA0FOOL ! Find out how fossils become fossils ! What kind of =
a moron =3D
are
you ??
You know, if you send that malfunctioning irony meter to EAC Irony
Meters "R" Us, they'll fix it for you.
Just make sure to include a self-addressed return label and postage.
New Scientist always has adverts for a book titled "How to Fossilize
Your Hamster: And Other Amazing Experiments for the Armchair
Scientist".
Is one *required* to use a cute, personable mammal? Might one use,
say, a gecko?
|
Pffft! Geckos are for high-school science fair projects. Real
cutting-edge peer-reviewed somebody-notify-Stockholm research
requires species that don't come half-fossilized before you
even start in on them.
Hey, according to the blurb on Amazon, you can measure the
speed of light using merely a chocolate bar and your
microwave! Let's see MacGuyver pull THAT one off.
| Quote: |
There some things, doctor, that man is not meant to know...
Which is why there's so much that we women don't tell you guys.
;-
|
I'll set `em up, you knock `em out...
-- cary |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sam Buckland
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:31 am Post subject: Re: Adam, Eve, & Noah Disproven |
|
|
SkyEyes wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 3, 4:16 pm, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <54583ea2-cfa5-4661-b10b-bf1e7c5dd...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com> SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> writes:
On Jul 3, 8:08=A0am, Rod <n...@noshapewayorform.net> wrote:
MarkA wrote:
Snippage
Well, if Satan can bury fossils
=A0 =A0Bury fossils ??? Do you even have an inkling of what you are sayin=
g
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
=A0 =A0FOOL ! Find out how fossils become fossils ! What kind of a moron =
are
you ??
You know, if you send that malfunctioning irony meter to EAC Irony
Meters "R" Us, they'll fix it for you.
Just make sure to include a self-addressed return label and postage.
New Scientist always has adverts for a book titled "How to Fossilize
Your Hamster: And Other Amazing Experiments for the Armchair
Scientist".
Is one *required* to use a cute, personable mammal? Might one use,
say, a gecko?
|
Or a creationist? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mike Painter
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:03 am Post subject: Re: Adam, Eve, & Noah Disproven |
|
|
Sam Buckland wrote:
| Quote: |
SkyEyes wrote:
On Jul 3, 4:16 pm, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article
54583ea2-cfa5-4661-b10b-bf1e7c5dd...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com
SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> writes:
On Jul 3, 8:08=A0am, Rod <n...@noshapewayorform.net> wrote:
MarkA wrote:
Snippage
Well, if Satan can bury fossils
=A0 =A0Bury fossils ??? Do you even have an inkling of what you
are sayin=
g
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
=A0 =A0FOOL ! Find out how fossils become fossils ! What kind of
a moron =
are
you ??
You know, if you send that malfunctioning irony meter to EAC Irony
Meters "R" Us, they'll fix it for you.
Just make sure to include a self-addressed return label and
postage.
New Scientist always has adverts for a book titled "How to Fossilize
Your Hamster: And Other Amazing Experiments for the Armchair
Scientist".
Is one *required* to use a cute, personable mammal? Might one use,
say, a gecko?
Or a creationist?
|
Or a pet rock?
Yes, there is a difference, the rock eats less and is smarter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Robibnikoff
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:02 am Post subject: Re: Adam, Eve, & Noah Disproven |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:g4jmjg$66i$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
| Quote: |
In article
54583ea2-cfa5-4661-b10b-bf1e7c5dde0a@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com
SkyEyes <skyeyes9@cox.net> writes:
On Jul 3, 8:08=A0am, Rod <n...@noshapewayorform.net> wrote:
MarkA wrote:
Snippage
Well, if Satan can bury fossils
=A0 =A0Bury fossils ??? Do you even have an inkling of what you are
sayin=
g
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
=A0 =A0FOOL ! Find out how fossils become fossils ! What kind of a
moron =
are
you ??
You know, if you send that malfunctioning irony meter to EAC Irony
Meters "R" Us, they'll fix it for you.
Just make sure to include a self-addressed return label and postage.
New Scientist always has adverts for a book titled "How to Fossilize
Your Hamster: And Other Amazing Experiments for the Armchair
Scientist".
|
What? Really? My kid would love that ;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
If you can't be a good example....
You'll just have to be a horrible warning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Robibnikoff
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:06 am Post subject: Re: Adam, Eve, & Noah Disproven |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:g4jmjg$66i$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
| Quote: |
In article
54583ea2-cfa5-4661-b10b-bf1e7c5dde0a@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com
SkyEyes <skyeyes9@cox.net> writes:
On Jul 3, 8:08=A0am, Rod <n...@noshapewayorform.net> wrote:
MarkA wrote:
Snippage
Well, if Satan can bury fossils
=A0 =A0Bury fossils ??? Do you even have an inkling of what you are
sayin=
g
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
=A0 =A0FOOL ! Find out how fossils become fossils ! What kind of a
moron =
are
you ??
You know, if you send that malfunctioning irony meter to EAC Irony
Meters "R" Us, they'll fix it for you.
Just make sure to include a self-addressed return label and postage.
New Scientist always has adverts for a book titled "How to Fossilize
Your Hamster: And Other Amazing Experiments for the Armchair
Scientist".
|
Ha! Put it on my Amazon wish list!
| Quote: |
There some things, doctor, that man is not meant to know...
|
Hey, I'll let you know after the witchling conducts the experiment ;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
If you can't be a good example....
You'll just have to be a horrible warning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
