XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.talk.creationism   
   From: chrisdhaag@googlemail.com   
      
   Am Sun, 08 May 2011 06:15:52 -0400 schrieb old man joe:   
      
   > here we have a segment of society who proudly boast of being born out of   
   > monkey's.   
      
   Out of monkey's what?   
      
   > this being the case and not barring global plagues such as the Black   
   > Death, and mass killing's by war, it is not reasonable to assume the   
   > Evolutionists have their ' facts ' in order.  by their system of   
   > Population Growth, which doesn't match up to the head count of even the   
   > last millennium, by their method there would not even be standing room   
   > for the trillions of people that would be alive today had man had   
   > 200,000 years to populate the planet.   
      
   What exactly is your argument? I seriously don't understand it.   
      
   Do you want to say that population growth must always be the same and   
   cannot change?   
      
   > earth resources to feed such a number certainly is beyond believability.   
   >   
   > Evolution is beyond believability.  in every aspect of it one must buy   
   > into the redefinition of terms which the Atheists themselves developed   
   > in trying to understand the world they live in. for example, the   
   > Periodic Table has no living elements in it yet all living things are   
   > comprised of the elements of the Periodic Table.   
      
   I don't understand why this makes evolution not believable. Have you just   
   discovered "emergence"?   
      
   > we are required to redefine the source of life as coming from non-living   
   > things rather than the Living God.   
      
   Please give a definition of life that requires that. And what does it   
   have to do with evolution? Are you sure you know the argument you want to   
   make?   
      
   > a bag full of   
   > human remains should be alive just as the living person holding the bag;   
   >  after all, nothing they're comprised of is alive in either case by   
   > reason of the elements in them.   
      
   Please give a honest answer: Are you a troll?   
   If so, this spam isn't funny.   
      
   > time isn't alive and nothing alive   
   > could possibly give life to itself out of the molten, poison gaseous   
   > early earth they like to promote.  hey fella, sleep through Biology 101   
   > ?  there is nothing alive in absolute sterility.   
      
   What does this have to do with "evolutionists" or population growth?   
      
   I have to assume you are just composing text blocks from creationist   
   websites together now.   
   Why?   
      
   > with 200,000 years of time to populate the earth there would be over a   
   > trillion people, not billions.   
      
   You still haven't given a valid reason why population growth couldn't   
   have been much slower in the past when there was not as good medicine or   
   infrastructure for producing and delivering food for example.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)