| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#791
|
|||
|
|||
"rick" wrote in message news  "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/25/05 12:13 AM: snip Whatever it was, it wasn't truthful. Because, the truth is, I never said what you claimed I said. ======================== Your intent was the same... My intent was exactly what I stated, not something you made up. ==================== Yes, spewing your ignorance. That wasn't something I made up. Actually, it was. ============== No, your have displayed your ignorance quite well. You have proven that you cannot use your computer. The fact that you just responded to a message sent from my computer proves that I can use it. You have proven that you cannot accept facts that interfere with your fantasies. What facts? Please present them. You have proven that you are a buffoon. I think behaviour befitting a buffoon could include: 1) corresponding with someone via computer and then telling them they don't know how to use a computer 2) telling them that they cannot accept facts that you have failed to present 3) at this point, the idea that you are going to start making sense has become a fantasy http://www.freep.com/news/locway/shoot4_20040604.htm ===================== NAme the corner store they bought their weapons from, fool. thanks again for displaying your ignorant ideology. Does it matter which store they bought them at!??!?!!??! =========================== LOL You're theone that keeps saying they trot down to the corner gun-mart, like there's one on every crack dealers corner. That's just part of your ignorant delusions. Well, they got them, and shot up the neighbourhood, isn't THAT the point? But I'll see your corner gun-marts and raise you a corner gun rent-a-center, like they have in Toronto. http://www.diversitywatch.ryerson.ca...globe_jan7.htm So? I'm not in favour of drug dealers buying guns and shooting people in Canada either! ================== Yet you can rent one for just that purpose. haven't seen any rent-a-gun shops around here. There's actually more than just me here in Canada. They can close every gun shop of ever type for all I care. Now where's your link that proves Canadians are dying in wait lines for health care? ================= I have, and I've told you where else to check several times. that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your decision. No one else has seen this post that you say you made. None of them. Either every other person here is delusional, or it's just you rick. ======================= Yes, you are first and foremost delusional. You are afraid to seek out the info. You are afraid of real discussion, so instead you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings. The info does not exist. Prove me wrong. Or are you a coward? What I did not say was that such incidents aco****ed for 1000s of deaths each year, and thus, you are wrong to attribute that position. ================== Yet you keep implying it. How many crack dealers are there, how many parks? Adds up to 1000s of people killed in your fantasy world of make-believe. I never said any such thing, nor implied it. If even one person is killed with an assault weapon - a gun that is designed to kill many people quickly - that's obviously too many. ===================== Yes, that is exactly what you keep implying when you talk about spraying in parks. I'm not implying anything. I'm saying it: if more than one person is killed with an assault weapon that is one too many. ======================= Why? Why only these so-called assault weapons? Again, what makes then so much more dangerous than other weapons? Uhm. The fact that you can fire a lot of bullets in a short period of time? Duh. =========================== DUH, fool. Thanks again for proving your ignorance. Lots of non-assault styled weapons can fire 'lots of bullets in a short period of time', dolt. Thanks again for proving its all about your ignorant ideology. What does ideology have to do with it? I don't like people getting shot. Do you? ================ No, and I can protect my family from just such an occurance. I suppose just before a hail of bullets you'll see it coming and grab your gun and spray fire in that direction first eh? LOL. Yep, if only every idiot had a gun, we'd all be safer. There's no need for assault weapons, other than the selfish fascination of gun nuts or those who want to kill a lot of people in a short period of time. ===================== Again fool, tell us the difference between this assault weapon and any other available. There are far more powerful and deadly weapons out there fool. Good, get rid of those too. Oh, and I see that you are in fact capable of re-posting information. We are all still waiting for your repost of the evidence that Canadians are dying in waiting lines. ================= I have, and I've told you where else to check several times. that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your decision. What was the date and time of your most recent posting of this information? It does not seem to be available on usenet. ================= I have, and I've told you where else to check several times. that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your decision. Anyone else see it? It doesn't seem to be available. Why won't you share the date and time of yoru most recent post with this information? ====================== What is apparent is your complete ignorance in the use of your computer. Why are you afraid of the facts? Please share them. As you are aware, thus far you are the only person that can see them. ==================== As everyone is now aware, you are too stupid to use your computer, even when told where to look. No one else has seen this post that you say you made. None of them. Either every other person here is delusional, or it's just you rick. ======================= Yes, you are first and foremost delusional. You are afraid to seek out the info. You are afraid of real discussion, so instead you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings. I'm not afraid. Prove me wrong. I say the information does not exist. Are you a coward? Like I said before fool, that you are too afraid to know the facts is no skin off my nose. I gave you the opportunity to find them yourself, because if I bring them up, you claim they are biased sources. Whay a hoot you are. thabnks again for proving your ignorant ideology... No one else has seen this post that you say you made. None of them. Either every other person here is delusional, or it's just you rick. ======================= Yes, you are first and foremost delusional. You are afraid to seek out the info. You are afraid of real discussion, so instead you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings. I say you are a liar. Prove me wrong. Are you a coward? |
|
#792
|
|||
|
|||
|
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... snip I never said any such thing, nor implied it. If even one person is killed with an assault weapon - a gun that is designed to kill many people quickly - that's obviously too many. ===================== Yes, that is exactly what you keep implying when you talk about spraying in parks. It happens. =================== What corner store did they buy these guns from? Your ignorance is exposed, again... AHAHAHA! So now it matters which store they bought them at? Heehee. It's fun watching you get so pathetically desperate! ====================== LOL That's a hoot coming from the tap dance queen... You've been tap dancing for days on end. You are a liar and a coward. |
|
#793
|
|||
|
|||
|
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/25/05 12:15 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 2/24/05 9:32 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... snippage... IOW, you know you're beat and are trying to slither out of admitting it. I'm not going to do your homework for you. Besides, YOU are the one who implied substantial US deaths from "assault weapons," so it's up to YOU to substantiate that claim. Unless there are no deaths from them, it doesn't matter. They aren't needed ============== According to whom????? You? You are hardly the arbiter of what people need. If I were you, the first thing I'd do is look for an education. Yours was sorely lacking. Maybe you should demand your money back... Whatever selfish but harmless reasons there might be for desiring to own an assault weapon, they can't possibly outweight the benefits of not having them available to those who wish to kill a lot of people quickly. ======================== Where are all these people that wish to kill 'a lot'(code for 1000s) of people? "A lot" is NOT code for 1000s of people. It's not code for anything. ============== Yes, it is. Especially when you keep saying it, despite the fact that it isn't so. How much is a lot of donuts? 1000? Only a nut like you thinks "a lot" means 1000s! ======================= LOL Nope, you're the one that keeps talking about a lot, and the 1000s of people that are shot in the US. 1) I have talked about "a lot." This does not mean 1000s. 2) I have also talked about the FACT that more than 30000 people die from guns in the US each year. Again, fortunatly you are not the arbiter of what is or is not needed. You really have no clue about weapons, do you, fool? I know that an assault rifle is designed to kill a lot of people quickly. ===================== No, you don't. Try learning a little more. Many assault weapons calibers are very intermediate cartridges, designed to wound rather than kill. Oh, great! ===================== What, more ignorance on your part? You really don't know anything about guns except what your brainwashing has taught you, do you? Hm. Well, if brainwashing = fanaticism, you should hear yourself. You really sound...well...crazy. There are many weapons that have far greater chance of killing than assualt weapons. Can any weapon kill? Sure, even a slingshot, but they don't kill just because they "look" mean. You really are a hoot. A laugh a minute. I'll amend: I know that an assault rifle is designed to put a lot of bullets into a lot of people quickly. ==================== So can many other weapons. Good, get rid of those too. That's why you'll find the statistics of 'assault weapon' use in crime pretty small. Again, tell the the difference between the operation of an assault weapon and others. I know that an assault rifle and many other weapons are designed to put a lot of bullets into a lot of people quickly. Only selfish idiots or people who want to kill a lot of other people would be in favour of having such guns. |
|
#795
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: in article et, rick at wrote on 2/24/05 10:44 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/24/05 9:12 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... snippage... Since I never made that claim, seems you are wrong as usual. ============= ROTFLMAO What a hoot! what part of... "...I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind...that a crack dealer can arm his posse with assault weapons with a trip to the gun shack on the corner and spray the local park with semi-automatic (or perhaps converted to automatic) gunfire..." kamn 2/20/2005 1:41 ...doesn't sound familier to you? Or, are you now claiming that somebody else here is posting fraudulantly using your name? No look at what you said: "You're the one that claimed that the drug dealers were buying assault weapons at the corner gun-mart, and that they killed 1000s of people every year" ============== Yes, I repeated the gist of your previous spew... A spew that is so full of ignorance and idiocy that it only gets the derision it deserves. Your "gist" include a specific claim that I did not make. Thus, your "gist" was an attempt to deceive that was exposed. ===================== No, it was not. The only thing 'exposed' was you continued ignorance on any subject you seem to reply to. I remain confident that the Framers did not have in mind that a crack dealer could buy an assault weapon at the store on the corner and spray the park with semi-automatic gunfire. ======================= No, they didn't have that in mind, and only you belive it or are trying to say that that occurs. Crack dealers have no rights to buy arms. Crack dealers who have not lost their rights to buy arms can buy them. You do realize that not every crack dealer ends up being convicted, right? Heck, all they have to do is go down to the corner and buy the right weapon to shoot any witnesses against them! ===================== LOL Do you make this up as you go, or has your fantasies been the main part of your life for years now? What I did not say was that such incidents aco****ed for 1000s of deaths each year, and thus, you are wrong to attribute that position. ================== Yet you keep implying it. How many crack dealers are there, how many parks? Adds up to 1000s of people killed in your fantasy world of make-believe. I never said any such thing, nor implied it. If even one person is killed with an assault weapon - a gun that is designed to kill many people quickly - that's obviously too many. ===================== Yes, that is exactly what you keep implying when you talk about spraying in parks. It happens. http://www.freep.com/news/locway/shoot4_20040604.htm Detroit shooting spree deaths climb Multiple victims contribute to alarming homicide rate June 4, 2004 Destiny Payne, 11, lost an eye after her home on Dequindre was shot up in April. With her is her mom, Yolanda Richardson. Police say the suspect admitted to having the wrong house. His real target was a rival drug dealer. Gunmen spraying bullets with high-powered weapons and killing more than one person during a single shooting spree are driving up Detroit's homicide rate. Detroit police call it the new gangster mentality. The haphazard shooters kill more than one person in an effort to leave no witnesses behind or to send messages of dominance without regard to who is in the bullets' paths. Such manic gunplay is the latest trend in one of America's most violent cities, according to Detroit police, national experts and a Free Press analysis of homicide statistics over the past 2 1/2 years. The numbers show: * About 60 multiple-victim shootings through May 31 of this year. In 17 of those cases, more than one person died, compared with seven such deaths at this time last year. * The practice of shooting up homes, cars and yards is catching children in the cross fire, contributing to child homicides. RELATED CONTENT * HOMICIDE VICTIMS: Those in drug trade are statistic leaders * Of the nation's 10 largest cities, Detroit -- ranked 10th -- experienced the greatest increase in homicides in the first five months of this year -- in large part, because of multiple-victim shootings. But Detroit police say one of the biggest culprits in multiple-victim homicides is rival drug dealers. "There is a drug war in this city. It's not an organized war; it's a guerrilla war," said a Detroit homicide detective, who asked not to be named because he feared retaliation for speaking without department permission. Criminologists say they do not know of any other city that is experiencing as many multiple-victim shootings and related homicides as Detroit. According to police in the nine other largest cities, such shootings are rare. Detroit homicide detectives call them common. During a single week in May, there were three multiple-victim shootings, killing two people and injuring seven. There were no triple, quadruple or quintuple homicides at this time last year. But this year, there have been. "You may or may not have the right house. You may or may not have the right person. You may or may not have the right person in the right house," Detroit Homicide Lt. William Petersen said of shooters. "It's just stupid. There are so many people dying of stupidity out here." And sometimes, children are the unintended victims. This year, 11 children 16 and younger have been killed, four accidentally.In at least one case, children were injured when a shooter took aim at the wrong house. Last Friday, a 4-year-old was killed when someone shot up her father's car as he was putting his children inside. The child's father also died. A 6-month-old child was not injured. There have been no arrests. Four children were wounded April 7 when the wrong house was sprayed with gunfire. Yolanda Richardson was making Easter plans with her six children and an 8-year-old guest at her home in the 17500 block of Dequindre when the walls exploded with bullets. The bullets hit Richardson in the buttocks; they struck 16-year-old Johnnie and 9-year-old Precious in the foot. Her daughter Destiny Payne, 11, started running upstairs, pushing her friend up with her, Richardson said. Destiny turned around and was hit once. She lost her right eye. Police arrested the alleged shooter, who they say admitted that he shot up the wrong house while looking for a rival drug dealer. At the home, bullet holes remain in a chair and to the right of the door. Richardson is looking for a new home, but she can't afford one. The family is staying wherever they can find space. "We were a house full of kids," she said. "Now we are everywhere." But officers also deal with the other extreme -- when a shooter deliberately targets everyone inside. On March 1, for example, someone got out of a white Ford Taurus and opened fire as he walked up to the home of a reputed drug dealer in the 9700 block of Woodlawn. Using an AK47, he fatally shot Kevin Cooper, 33, Robert Neal, 32, and Dorian Latham, 39, all of Detroit. Two days later, Toryana Royal, 22, turned himself in to the 12th (Palmer Park) Precinct. Another suspect, Alfonzo Thomas, 20, is still on the lam. 5 months, 3 increases Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said she cannot explain why Detroit has more multiple-victim shootings than most cities but that she thinks better technology could curtail them. Worthy said she would like to have better ways to track guns and casings so her office could better link criminals to crimes. That linkage could increase their prison sentences. She said criminals who kill more than one person often have committed other crimes. In the span of five months, the city homicide rate has seen three surges, Detroit Police Chief Ella Bully-Cummings said. The chief declined to be interviewed for this story. The first uptick was in January, when 18 people were killed in a six-day period -- including a triple and three double homicides.The homicide rate surged again in mid-February, resulting in a decision by police brass to require officers to work 12-hour shifts to help curb the trend. The rate climbed again throughout much of April, when about 40 people were killed. In one week in April, there were four multiple-victim shootings. James Alan Fox, a Northeastern University criminologist, said there has been a slight increase in gang-related homicides nationally, led by Los Angeles and Chicago. But Detroit is not plagued by organized gangs. That there are subcultures that don't know how to properly exercise our rights, does not mean that the rest of us should be deprived of being able to exercise those rights ourselves. Using your logic, we should not be allowed to vote, speak or assemble freely, travel freely, be free to pursue happiness, and be happy, have a free press, because some misuse those freedoms. The problem is not in having the right, but in exercising those rights. It is the person pulling the trigger that kills someone, the gun and the bullet, are just instruments. The instrument could just as easily been a ball bat, or as in your neighborhood a hockey stick. A hockey stick is not quite as effective as an assault rifle, Tinkerntom. Don't tell me you are one of these gun nuts too? That's all I need, agh. Though in close quarters, I know I would keep my head down if someone is slinging a hockey stick. Though militarily you are correct, it would not be as effective. An assault weapon is obviously able to fire many projectiles in a short period of time, and hence kill or wound multiple targets. Hoorah! However as a military weapon, it is primarily designed to provide suppression fire control, not necessarily kill power. If you want to kill a particular target you would use a sniper rifle, firing a large bullet over a long distance, at a very small target. On the other hand an assault weapon would not need to hit anyone in order to accomplish its mission, which is to cause the enemy combatant to keep his head down, allowing your troops to advance on the combatants position, and possibly capture him alive. Small caliber bullets and poor sights combined with a rapid fire mode are not designed to kill primarily. Sigh. That thugs use the weapon, to indiscrimatly kill innocents who do not have a chance to get out of the way, does not make the assault weapon evil. The weapon has no other purpose, save for the selfish need of gun nuts to add it to their "collection." Is that really so important? The weapon is a very necessary weapon and has a specific purpose in military missions. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MILITARY TINKERNTOM! GIVE YOUR HEAD A SHAKE! There are those who collect military weapons and paraphanelia of all sorts, and for them they have a purpose in having them. The drug dealers have defined another purpose, though not acceptable from a legal standpoint. Most legitimate gun collectors probably do not have one in thir collection if for no other reason they are expensive, and use capital more desirably spent. As far as shooting them, they are even more expensive, and require deep pockets to support the overhead of a rapid fire weapon. Though it is within the scope of the Government to attempt to restrict access to the weapon because of its illegal use. The AK-47 is a typical assault weapon, though there are others such as the MAC-10. None of which are suitable for hunting game because of their poor sighting system, small caliber, and single shot capability. Right. So who needs 'em? Drug dealers who want to shoot up the park, that's who! And the drug dealers don't care about any law that is passed, and will have the weapons of their choice, no matter the cost. Why have any laws at all Tinkerntom? The bad guys will just do what they want anyway, right? Another identifing characteristic of military weapons is their poor fit and finish. Battlefied conditions do not desire a tight close tolerance in weapons subject to mud and debri, that would jamb a weapon. Also less concern for finish is used for a weapon that may only be used for very brief though intense time in a battlefield condition before it or the operator is removed from service. Both of these issues make these weapons undesirable for hunting purposes. The only other use for such a weapon is in the case of close action self defense such as in your home. Though most home owners would not have practiced sufficiently to use one efficiently, and generally not walking around the home with one at the ready, would likely only succede in wounding himself, or friend, and generally doing alot of property damage, before ever wounding the invader. A shotgun would probably be a better choice for home protection, not requiring close aiming, and being simpler to operate, without the penetration of a high powered round. All these things being considered, the Congress of US passed laws restricting the personal ownership and possession of these types of weapons. Certain zones such as D.C. are also supposedly gun free. All this sounds resonable, until you consider that one of the main proponents of the above objections, and the Congressional laws, Senator John Kerry, apparently owns a number of AK-47 and posseses them in D.C. Talk about Hypocrisy! TnT Sigh. It sounds reasonable even if John Kerry has an atomic bomb in his basement. So is it alright for Kerry to have an assault weapon since he is breaking the law. Would you want a law breaker having access to the A-Bomb, as long as he is your man, bought and paid for? I'm saying it is not all right! Geezus you can be thick. Kerry is not "my man" in the least. Where'd you get that crazy idea? If he's got illegal weapons, string him up by the balls, go for it. And string Bush up next to him for invading a country and killing people on false pretenses. You ask if I am one of these gun nuts too? Please define your label, which you seem to be willing to stick on everyone and anyone who doesn't agree with you. Personally I have come to prefer dispensing aspirin. Tnt A gun nut...someone who thinks everyone should have a gun and then the world would be safer. Someone who thinks the term "assault rifle" is some "liberal" nonsense contrived to give the FBI the opportunity to invade everyone's homes and steal their guns so "the government" can take over. Y'know, Tinkerntom...gun nuts. |
|
#796
|
|||
|
|||
|
"rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message nk.net... "Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 25-Feb-2005, "rick" wrote: Please provide a link. Otherwise, unless you believe that everyone but you is able to see them, you may have to accept that they do not exist. ================= I have, and I've told you where else to check several times. that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your decision. It would take you a lot less time to post the link than to keep insisting that you already did. What are you afraid of? ===================== ROTFLMAO What a hoot. It would have been far quicker for you and kman to have looked for yourselves. Since it doesn't exist, it's not quicker. ================= Keep telling yourself that fool. That you refuse to look says all anyone needs to know about your willful ignorance. You are a liar and a coward. |
|
#797
|
|||
|
|||
|
"rick" wrote in message news "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/25/05 12:00 AM: Did anyone else see it? ================= I have, and I've told you where else to check several times. that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your decision. Why not simply state the date and time? ==================== The posts were already made. Do your own homework, fool... Neither I nor anyone else can see any post from you that provides evidence that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care. Please provide a link. Otherwise, unless you believe that everyone but you is able to see them, you may have to accept that they do not exist. ================= I have, and I've told you where else to check several times. that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your decision. No one else has seen this post that you say you made. None of them. Either every other person here is delusional, or it's just you rick. ======================= Yes, you are first and foremost delusional. You are afraid to seek out the info. You are afraid of real discussion, so instead you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings. As I've offered, simply post the material and I will apologize. ============== Already have fool, and on my server they are still available, plus where I've told you to look. That you wish to remain willfully ignorant proves your ideology trumps knowledge. You are a liar and a coward. |
|
#798
|
|||
|
|||
|
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/25/05 12:05 AM: snip Has anyone seen rick post any reference (credible or otherwise) that proves Canadians are dying waiting in line for health care? If so, please provide a link. Thanks. ================= I realize that learning things contrary to your ideology is hard for you, but you really should try it sometime. Rather than just waving your hands and claiming who or who isn't credible, look it up. But then, you've already proven that that is too much for you, or to scary for you. maintaining your ignorance appears to be paramount to your mental well being. Neither I nor anyone else can see any post from you that provides evidence that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care. Please provide a link. Otherwise, unless you believe that everyone but you is able to see them, you may have to accept that they do not exist. ================= I have, and I've told you where else to check several times. that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is your decision. No one else has seen this post that you say you made. None of them. ================ You've asked the whole world have you? What a hoot fool. Again, why are you afraid to look up the info for yourself? Why do you want me to, whne I already have and you didn't like the messenger? The information does not exist, because you are wrong. ============== Keep telling yourself that, and maybe someday you might even believe it. That you wish to remain willfully ignorant proves your ideology trumps knowledge. You are a liar and a coward. |
|
#799
|
|||
|
|||
|
"rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at snip ====================== LOL Why can't you simply look it up for yourself? I've given you hints on where to look. But then, that would require some thought, and you have proven that independent thought isn't your thing. Neither I nor anyone else can see any post from you that provides evidence that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care. Please provide a link. Otherwise, unless you believe that everyone but you is able to see them, you may have to accept that they do not exist. ================================== LOL Still pretending, eh fool? I see you are still afraid of the facts. Keep up the good work in proving your ignorant ideology. No one else has seen this post that you say you made. None of them. Either every other person here is delusional, or it's just you rick. ======================= Yes, you are first and foremost delusional. You are afraid to seek out the info. I'm not afraid at all. The information does not exist. If you have information that no one else has, I am asking you to post it. Thus, I am seeking it out. You are afraid of real discussion, so instead you puff out your chest in jingoistic blatherings. There is nothing jingoistic about asking you to post the materials to support your claim. But you can't, because they don't exist. ================== LOL I posted support for my claims, you have not. All you've done is thump your chest and make claims that I disproved. You didn't like that, so you have ignored the posts and/or claimed the messenger was bad. Too bad for you that the facts remain available, and are there for you to see, if you'd ever open your eyes. You are a liar and a coward. |
|
#800
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Because even random DNA modification caused by gamma rays should have produced some alternative forms better suited to survival at sea. DNA changes are produced by many things, not just gamma rays. Indeed. Thanks for strengthening my argument. In fact, every fertilized egg is an example of recombination of genetic material that is unique. I've already pointed out that not all changes provide for forms that are better suited. Even if one does, there is no guarantee that that one survives. It's a tough world out there. I agree. But you still have not explained why it is that primates evolved into humans in less than 2 million years while sharks have not evolved into anything else in more than 400 million years. Could it be that humans were intended to evolve while sharks weren't? Which is why evolution is a "theory," not a scientific fact. A theory is a hypothesis backed by an abundance of fact. Get over it. Thanks for agreeing with me. And so there must therefore be some force other than gradual variation which drives evolution. What is it, pray tell? It could be episodic change. No gods required. Get over it. So, you agree that it could be an episodic change. Now please explain what causes this episodic change? What is the trigger? And how episodic is it? Does it occur instantly, from one generation, or indeed individual organism to the next, or is there some time/generational span in which the change takes place more slowly? What is the mechanism if this change? Is is a "natural phenomenon" or is there some unexplained trigger that causes one creature to become another episodically? If an individual member of a species episodically becomes another species, how does that new species survive, since virtually all distinct species are not interfertile, or if they are, the result is a sterile derivative like the mule? How then can this "new" species procreate and thus survive? For this to be possible, massive numbers of the "new" species would have to be created, in both sexes, at exactly the same time, in order for there to be a sufficient number of interfertile pairs available to perpetuate the new species. How, exactly, would a mass change from one species to another spontaneously occur under any theory of evolution? That would require an identical genetic shift in a massive population of organisms simultaneously, which is about as statistically impossible as it gets under any sort of random mutation/evolution model. Care to explain how this could occur? And is it not possible that "God" instigated these episodic changes by directly or indirectly manipulating the physical world? Could there be an intelligence behind the genetic shift somehow manipulating either the environment or the DNA directly to cause that change? Can you prove that no such external manipulation is or has taken place? And then there's the change to upright gait... You still insist on proving that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Homo Sapiens has always walked upright. Indeed. But what about Homo Sapien's precursor primate species that didn't. If your theory of evolution is correct, then at some point primate species that preceded Homo Sapiens who did not use an upright gait changed in some manner and began walking upright. So, when, exactly, did these primates "become" Homo Sapiens? If your evolutionary theory is correct, there is no such thing as "Homo Sapiens" because factually speaking the organism that exists today is merely an incremental change from whatever creature it evolved from. Go back far enough and we're all therefore really pond scum. Introducing an artificial demarcation point of where our primate ancestors "became" human seems to be shallow thinking if evolution is the true and only process involved. This is particularly true when you cannot identify, in the fossil record or otherwise, how Homo Sapien is genetically related to primate (and earlier) forms. Can you show a genetic evolution from pond scum to primate to human that would support your theory of evolution? Then the "scientific community" are evading the issue. Bull****. The scientific community bases their science on observation. Ah, yes, "observation." You mean like the scientific observation that the world is flat? How about the scientific observation that "atoms" are the smallest form of matter? Or the scientific observation that the sun revolves around the earth? Scientific observation, of course, relies for its accuracy on the ability of the observer to both detect and understand what is being observed. Nobody knew, for example, until quite recently that a substance called "Bose-Einstein Condensate" actually existed or could be created. Advances in our understanding of physical science permitted us to observe and understand that phenomenon. However, Einstein had "faith" that such a substance could exist, based on his mathematical hypotheses about the physical universe. Cannot "God" be considered to be an hypothesis of intelligent design based on mathematical probabilities, intellectual reasoning and unexplained physical properties of the universe? Does the fact that scientists cannot yet detect, observe, quantify and explain "God" prove somehow that God does not and cannot exist? The religious nut cases base their fantasies on insisting on the existanc of God and then trying to force fit the world to match their fantasies. Some time ago, your "scientists" believed wholesale that Galileo, Newton and even Archimedes were deluded fools. The fact that our scientists are not yet smart enough to either observe or understand the existence of "Acts of God" does not disprove the hypothesis (or theory) that God exists and is (or has) manipulating the physical parameters of the Universe. Faith is indeed a state of belief in God in the absence of provable scientific evidence of God, but Newton had faith that gravity existed, and Galileo had faith that the earth revolved around the sun, and Archimedes had faith that the inclined plane could be wrapped around a cylinder at one time, even though they did not understand the physical factors involved. We *still* do not clearly understand gravity, among other things we don't yet understand. Having a belief in God (an intelligence of design) is in no way unscientific, it is merely the first step into a scientific inquiry into what God is and how one might identify, observe and measure God. That many people are not scientists and choose to believe in God even though they cannot quantify or observe God directly, does not impeach their argument that God exists, which is founded on more than simple belief or faith. As I said at the beginning, there are things about our physical universe that cannot yet be explained by science and are not understood by our scientists. Attributing those phenomena to God is no less valid of a hypothesis than is attributing gravity to some undetectable, theoretical "force." You implicitly reject the existence of God not because God has been scientifically disproven, but because you yourself are incapable of accepting the idea that there is an intelligence so advanced and so vast that it has the power to manipulate the fundamental makeup of the physical universe. That's little more than egocentrism and anthropocentrism, not rigorous scientific inquiry. A true scientist would not simply discard a hypothesis of the existence of God as reflected in the statistical (im)probabilities of the makeup of the physical universe, he would investigate and try to either prove or disprove the hypothesis conclusively while keeping an open mind about things he does not yet understand. Thus, evolution, even if true, does not disprove the existence of God. Rejecting the possibility of God's existence merely because one believes in the theory of evolution is shallow thinking indeed. And who, in this discussion, has suggested that? Nice backpedal. You did. To wit: Where in that post did I state that God does not exist? Do you believe God exists? And your anti-God agenda is pretty clearly enunciated when you call those who believe in God "religious nut cases" engaging in "fantasies." I say your words belie your temporization. Do you or do you not believe in God? If so, why? I said that it doesn't _prove_ that God exists. What "it" are you referring to? Big difference, twit. Learn to read. Clearly you are threatened by my arguments. Do you have some bone to pick with God that makes you so angry when God's existence is debated? -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Crimes Against Nature-- RFK, Jr. Interview | General | |||
Linear Mode
