On 25-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Could it be that humans were
intended to evolve while sharks weren't?

There is no evidence of intention.

So, you agree that it could be an episodic change.

I agree with you? You keep making up things and hope you get
something right. You _still_ haven't posted any reference to
a scientific theory of evolution that resembles the nonsense
you are spewing.

Indeed. But what about Homo Sapien's precursor primate species that didn't.

Changing the discussion from morphology to something else?
Trying to avoid the fact that you don't know what you're talking about?

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?

So, you don't understand the scientific method at all. Those bits of
information have all been superceded. And for the record, the scientific
community never held much for a flat earth - that was the religious
nutcase view. Any natural philosopher would have known about Eratosthenes'
measurements to deduce the circumference of the earth. Ditto Aristarchus
and his observations of the earth going around the sun.

Is ignorance one of your specialties?

Some time ago, your "scientists" believed wholesale that Galileo, Newton and
even Archimedes were deluded fools.

Proof?

Galileo was a widely respected natural philosopher, even among the members
of the Catholic Church. That's why he was treated so well during his
inquisition. Newton was the Lucasian chair of Mathematics and was so
well respected by his peers that he was believed to be correct even when
he was not. Archimedes was also a well respected philosopher - the cartoon
version of him as a crazy man running around in a towel yelling "Eureka"
has nothing to do with historical reality.

You have nothing to do with historical or present reality either.

You implicitly reject the existence of God not because God has been
scientifically disproven

Why do you continue to lie about this? Provide a single quote where
I have said that God does not exist. The fact that you can't deal
with any discussion without lying and misrepresenting the truth
proves that you are an idiot.

Clearly you are threatened by my arguments.

Clearly you are delusional.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:


You implicitly reject the existence of God not because God has been
scientifically disproven

Why do you continue to lie about this?

What part of "implicitly" do you fail to understand?

Provide a single quote where
I have said that God does not exist.

Nor have you responded to a specific question about whether you believe God
does exist, and are thus evading the question.

The fact that you can't deal
with any discussion without lying and misrepresenting the truth
proves that you are an idiot.

In my experience, college level scholars don't generally engage in
name-calling and ad hominem attack merely because they dispute the veracity
of their opponent's claims. They instead argue the facts and present
evidence and argumentation tending to support their thesis, while
recognizing that conflict in theories is the essence of intellectual
inquiry.

That being the case, I judge, once again, that you are a tenth-grade
equivalent Netwit of fractional wit and less interest.

Given that you are clearly uninterested in a reasoned philosophical debate
sans invective, I believe I'll stop wasting my time with you.

--
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

On 26-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

You implicitly reject the existence of God not because God has been
scientifically disproven

Why do you continue to lie about this?

What part of "implicitly" do you fail to understand?

I have _explicity_ stated otherwise, idiot.

Nor have you responded to a specific question

You still have not provided _any_ proof for _any_ specious
claim on which you have been challenged.

They instead argue the facts and present
evidence and argumentation tending to support their thesis, while
recognizing that conflict in theories is the essence of intellectual
inquiry.

I have argued the facts, idiot and still haven't seen you produce
a single fact to support your ridiculous claims.

Given that you are clearly uninterested in a reasoned philosophical debate

You haven't even begun to engage in reasoned debate. You have lied,
misrepresented what is said, made unsupportable claims and refused
to offer any facts in your defense. You have no claim to any
high road. YOu are a fool that wastes everyone elses' time. NOw
you are abandoning the discussion because you have proved nothing
but that you are an idiot.

Mike