d38583d6   
   XPost: alt.talk.creationism, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.usenet.kooks   
   From: sloppy.pecan.pattie@alt.comedy.tip-tilted-kisser   
      
   Richard Cornford, thou hag-seed. Ye unsightly fat rogue, thou bawd,   
   thou broker, thou all changing word. Ye purled:   
      
   > On Feb 16, 12:14 pm, Kadaitcha Man wrote:   
   >> martin wrote:   
   >>> On 16/02/2011 11:42, old man joe wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>> evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements   
   >>>> of the earth which are not alive.   
   >>   
   >>> wrong.   
   >>   
   >> Is that so?   
   >   
   > Y   
      
   I love it when you pseudosuperheroes jump in to save one of your fellow   
   fuckwits from an embarrassment. It gives me two cretins to slap around   
   at the same time.   
      
    > The statement being criticised does not say that.   
      
   "The statement being criticised" is ambiguous.   
      
    > In reality   
      
   That word, 'reality' says an awful lot about you. Please don't use words   
   you don't know the meaning of. It says you're a materialist/objectivist   
   whose world view is grounded in 300 year old, highly discredited   
   Newtonian mechanics, and that you have a propensity to make arguments   
   without any idea of what the fuck it is you're gibbering on about.   
      
    > evolution is about how life changes, and so does not come   
    > into play until there is life.   
      
   See? You're a fuckwit pseudosuperhero. You have just witlessly confirmed   
   that his statement is correct. Without "life coming from the elements of   
   the earth which are not alive", there is no life for evolution to   
   function, therefore evolution depends on life.   
      
    > but how life comes into existence in the first   
    > place is not anything to do with evolution;   
      
   Evolution has three underpinning assumptions, one of those assumptions   
   is the presence of life, that is, self-replicating organisms that   
   metabolise. So, you've just destroyed the theory of evolution by killing   
   off its most basic assumption. You must feel really proud of that clever   
   twist of illogic of yours, hey.   
      
   You also proved my assertion that you don't know what the fuck you're   
   talking about. Nobody in their right mind invalidates the founding   
   assumption of the very thing they're trying to defend. What's worse, you   
   did it with complete witlessness and continued on as if nothing had   
   happened.   
      
    > they are different   
    > subjects. The statement is wrong because it is predicated on a faulty   
    > understanding of what evolution is.   
      
   No. The empirical evidence plainly shows that you're a fuckwit   
   pseudosuperhero who opened his fat trap without even a single considered   
   thought.   
      
   Next time try analysing statements for ambiguity before you prove   
   yourself to be the fuckwit everyone now knows you are.   
      
   HTH   
      
   --   
   loon pipe : n. Anus.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)