XPost: alt.talk.creationism, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.usenet.kooks   
   From: naked.hot.box@sci.physics.paganism   
      
   us4zion@att.net, ye art a shard-borne grease stain, I'll have no more   
   of thee. Ye mad foul swine, ye Fat-Guts. Ye exhorted:   
      
   > On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 04:54:19 +0800, Kadaitcha Man  wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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   
   >   
   > Dimwit.   
      
   Fuckheaded nincompoop.   
      
   > According to you only a genius can know God.   
      
   Well, you'd better cough up some proof for that claim, eh.   
      
   --   
   kife : n. 1. collective Blart; totty; birds. 2. Sex.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)