Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Daggah · 03-20-2002, 01:31 PM

Say, randman, are you familiar with hox genes at all?

pseudobug · 03-20-2002, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daggah:
Say, randman, are you familiar with hox genes at all?

I gave him that argument months ago on another board, Daggah. I gave him the "hen's teeth" mouse hox gene example.

Randman went into his obfuscation/change the subject mode. Then shifted to lying about something else.

Randman is slippery than a catfish on a mudbank and is as full of shit as a Christmas goose.

Dr Rick · 03-20-2002, 02:32 PM

To be fair and honest, we must all admit a certain difficulty in refuting the ole' "5,6,7...etc." argument; don't you just hate it when some creationist confounds us with that brilliant bit of evidence?

tronvillain · 03-20-2002, 03:07 PM

Actually, "5*, 6*, 7*, etc.*" seems like a pretty good refutation.

Dr Rick · 03-20-2002, 03:30 PM

By golly, you're right, Tron: Compared to most Creationist drivel, randman's counting game seems positively intelligent.

MrDarwin · 03-20-2002, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pseudobug:
As to the most recent horeseshit you posted

Quote:

Once again you demonstrate that you are both lazy and stupid.

etc.

Pseudobug, I get as frustrated with randman aas you do and have no desire to defend him but could you please tone it down just a bit?

randman · 03-20-2002, 04:47 PM

I am off this thread. Pseudobug is resorting to his usual lack of class in order to cover for his weak content, in my view, but noone has to stick around and take garbage like that.
The list of recapitulation, Ne anderthal, and such was what I was taught as evidence for evolution in the early 70s, and it was all false. About the only thing that had merit was the geographic strata. The rest of the stuff we were taught as proof of evolution was bogus. I learned it was bogus in the late 80s when challenged to look into why I accepted evolution, and to see if the data was real. I quit beleiving in evolution because what I was taught as evidence for it like the horse progression and the examples I mentioned were lies.
I mistakenly thought some of you might actually wonder why someone would reject your theory.

pseudobug · 03-20-2002, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin:

Pseudobug, I get as frustrated with randman aas you do and have no desire to defend him but could you please tone it down just a bit?

No, I will not tone it down a bit. I was nice to the lying jackass for too long on another board.

I explained to him the reasons for many of his misconceptions for months using many of the same examples that you folks here have used. He resorted to the exact same tactics.

He has exhausted any good will due him here with regard to the subject. He deserves to be treated no better then what he has shown himself to be---a lying piece of dung.

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: pseudobug ]

pseudobug · 03-20-2002, 05:09 PM

[edited to remove double post]

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: pseudobug ]

lpetrich · 03-20-2002, 06:01 PM

Seems to me that Randman has read creationist writings almost exclusively; accusing the scientific community of telling lies is not generally considered dignified behavior.

Here's one site that might enlighten him greatly: <a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu" target="_blank">http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu</a> -- the Tree of Life presented in relatively easy-to-understand terms.

03-20-2002, 05:09 PM	#69
pseudobug Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: land of confusion Posts: 178	[edited to remove double post] [ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: pseudobug ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-20-2002, 01:31 PM	#61
Daggah Banned Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Deployed to Kosovo Posts: 4,314	Say, randman, are you familiar with hox genes at all?

03-20-2002, 02:32 PM	#63
Dr Rick Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,393	To be fair and honest, we must all admit a certain difficulty in refuting the ole' "5,6,7...etc." argument; don't you just hate it when some creationist confounds us with that brilliant bit of evidence?

03-20-2002, 03:07 PM	#64
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Actually, "5, 6, 7, etc." seems like a pretty good refutation.

03-20-2002, 03:30 PM	#65
Dr Rick Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,393	By golly, you're right, Tron: Compared to most Creationist drivel, randman's counting game seems positively intelligent.

03-20-2002, 04:47 PM	#67
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	I am off this thread. Pseudobug is resorting to his usual lack of class in order to cover for his weak content, in my view, but noone has to stick around and take garbage like that. The list of recapitulation, Ne anderthal, and such was what I was taught as evidence for evolution in the early 70s, and it was all false. About the only thing that had merit was the geographic strata. The rest of the stuff we were taught as proof of evolution was bogus. I learned it was bogus in the late 80s when challenged to look into why I accepted evolution, and to see if the data was real. I quit beleiving in evolution because what I was taught as evidence for it like the horse progression and the examples I mentioned were lies. I mistakenly thought some of you might actually wonder why someone would reject your theory.

03-20-2002, 06:01 PM	#70
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Seems to me that Randman has read creationist writings almost exclusively; accusing the scientific community of telling lies is not generally considered dignified behavior. Here's one site that might enlighten him greatly: <a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu" target="_blank">http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu</a> -- the Tree of Life presented in relatively easy-to-understand terms.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.