It is a very interesting subject though James (for me it is)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Well one does have the choice of not responding to his posts. Just think if nobody ever posted to any of his threads. Feed them and they will come.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Good question Clyde. I tend to not be able to follow anymore because of that.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Ya, Catechism class is where Creationism is taught. Why would you not know that?

Fair and Balanced...

But not all schools run by the Roman Catholic church teach Catechism.

Bet you didn't know that.

I did.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Ya, Catechism class is where Creationism is taught. Why would you not know that?

Fair and Balanced...

But not all schools run by the Roman Catholic church teach Catechism.

Bet you didn't know that.

Ya, Catechism class is where Creationism is taught. Why would you not know that?

Fair and Balanced...

So you do agree then, that Intelligent Design, AKA creationism is not science?

Finally. I thought you'd never understand.

---

Reality Internet Personality

betreger said:
The society of unsubstianted assertions applauds your BS.

The Society of One Sentence Posters who Use One Sentence to Denigrate Always, Applauds You, Sir.

heeeheeeheee.

Oh Yeah.

fO shO.

Dat be fO sentences fO Da Brainiac.

Dat Me.

OOooopsie. dat Six. Oooopsie again. Dat Seven. No, Ten.

;-)

I stopped keeping count after you reached 5.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Ya, Catechism class is where Creationism is taught. Why would you not know that?

Fair and Balanced...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

You taught science in a Catholic school.

In more than one Catholic school.

Did you teach the Catechism?

Nope. I already told you, I taught science.

You really have no idea what the curriculum is/was now do you?

More than you apparently. Do you know how schools work?

Never not once looked around you as to what else was going on did you?

Lol. Wrong again. I am so sure right now that I have a better idea at what goes on in Catholic schools than you do.

I can typing...

Do you know what words you are trying to use?

---

Reality Internet Personality

betreger said:
The society of unsubstianted assertions applauds your BS.

The Society of One Sentence Posters who Use One Sentence to Denigrate Always, Applauds You, Sir.

heeeheeeheee.

Oh Yeah.

fO shO.

Dat be fO sentences fO Da Brainiac.

Dat Me.

OOooopsie. dat Six. Oooopsie again. Dat Seven. No, Ten.

---

It simply doesn't take Faith. This thread proves it.

I was assured that he was a scientist. Not that assurances mean anything here. Never the less he didn't know the theory and I have been told he works in that field.

I have good reason not to----believe that.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

No, I am correct.

The society of unsubstianted assertions applauds your BS.

---

Charles Darwin was just 28 years old when, in 1837, he scribbled in a notebook "
one species does change into another"—one of the first hints of his great theory ...

Robert, your understanding of the theory of evolution in particular, and of the scientific method in general, is "flat out" wrong on very many levels. This is the biggest red herring in this thread, and all the others you've spawned in this forum. Your premise is false.

Here's some context for what you quoted above: What Darwin Didn't Know.

No, I am correct.

;-) and Your link wont download.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Charles Darwin was just 28 years old when, in 1837, he scribbled in a notebook "
one species does change into another"—one of the first hints of his great theory ...

Robert, your understanding of the theory of evolution in particular, and of the scientific method in general, is "flat out" wrong on very many levels. This is the biggest red herring in this thread, and all the others you've spawned in this forum. Your premise is false.

Here's some context for what you quoted above: What Darwin Didn't Know.

---

It does not require---belief.

You make this outlandish assertion about the possibilty of donut shaped planets and then claim to have cited a reason why they are possible in theory. I do not belive you have cited any thing to affirm your assertion. Provide the reason you say such nonsense. You claim to have done this already. Prove it.

---

It does not require---belief.

Prove it.

---

It does not require---belief.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

no
already done that...

I do not believe you!

---

You sir are wrong... ...flat out wrong.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

You do make some strange comments at times.

As do you.

You accuse people all the time of putting words into your mouth, when in fact you are the person most likely to.

No, no I don't. I do so when people put words in my mouth or twist what I say into something different then I said in the first place. I'm not the only one who thinks that either. It has been brought up by someone else in this thread.

And the second part of your sentence is very much untrue. I take people for what they say and respond to what they say.

Nowhere has it ever been suggested that SCOTUS does peer reviews. Courts use evidence and expert witnesses.

Sometimes and sometimes not. As in this case the sometimes not...

Never the less the court case your talking about had everything to do with politics and not much to do with the science of Intelligent Design. Which is the same as Neo-Darwinism.

And how many tin=mes do you have to be told there is no such thing as neo-darwinism, there is in fact no such thing as darwinism. The words you are looking for are "The Theory of Evolution" Please use that phase in all your future postings.

I reckon you haven't read the books I have already posted about in this link, written by Neo-Darwinist who proclaim EXACTLY what I have said here. I WILL call it exactly what it is in all my postings.

In in all your future postings, along with everyone else here please refrain from calling Intelligent Design--Creationism. It is a grievous mistake you all seem to make. I have been very and quite clear about this.

And "The Theory pf Evolution" never never has stated or proposed that a species can change into another.

Charles Darwin was just 28 years old when, in 1837, he scribbled in a notebook "
one species does change into another"—one of the first hints of his great theory ...

Please be more careful when you post. I do try to be as careful AND accurate as I can. I do sometimes mess up and blow it from time to time but... ...really that is the theory and you are 100% wrong as has everyone else who said the very samething you have here...

Please look up genetic drift or perhaps gene flow.

If two species are linked then it will be they had a common ancestor, probably millions of years ago.

Yes, that would be called a hybrid, a offspring of two animals or plants of different races, breeds, varieties, species, or genera. I believe in this part of Darwin, it can be proven.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...