Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / November 2005



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Molecular biology is proving Intelligent design

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Richard Dawkins - 25 Nov 2005 17:05 GMT
Last night there was a special on television on the Chemical revolution on
creationism.
On this particular show were former evolutionists that had examined the cell
down to it's dna levels and walked away from evolution forever into the new
science of creationism.
Some were very tenured and postulated theory that were originally widely
applauded by their peers.
The basis of the dna helix is that protein and amino acids are in such an
astronomically intelligently aligned arrangement as to leave any chance of
them coming out of primordial sludge less than zero.
The tcga arrangement in our cells (the information that binds the amino's to
protein) must be a precise arrangement for life to exist.The chances of all
of this happening by accident is astronomically impossible.
An exciting time is on the horizon for creationism.
John Wilkins - 26 Nov 2005 00:58 GMT
<tripe>
This guy is a troll from talk.origins. Don't respond.

Signature

John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Nihil tam absurdum quod non quidam Philosophi dixerit - Cicero

Richard Dawkins - 26 Nov 2005 03:58 GMT
> <tripe>
> This guy is a troll from talk.origins. Don't respond.

And you're a God-Hating fool trolling Christian Newsgroups...heh
George - 26 Nov 2005 04:41 GMT
>> <tripe>
>> This guy is a troll from talk.origins. Don't respond.
>
> And you're a God-Hating fool trolling Christian Newsgroups...heh

Umm, sci.bio.paleontology is a Christian newsgroup? Have I missed something
here?  Why are you trolling science newsgroups?

George
Richard Dawkins - 26 Nov 2005 10:24 GMT
>>> <tripe>
>>> This guy is a troll from talk.origins. Don't respond.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> George
First off evolution is not a science.
Second off the sig stays
John Harshman - 26 Nov 2005 15:21 GMT
>>>><tripe>
>>>>This guy is a troll from talk.origins. Don't respond.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> First off evolution is not a science.
> Second off the sig stays

Two questions:

What makes you think paleontology is synonymous with evolution?
What sig?
George - 26 Nov 2005 20:06 GMT
>>>> <tripe>
>>>> This guy is a troll from talk.origins. Don't respond.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>> George
> First off evolution is not a science.

First of all, you are a troll, and a nutcase.

> Second off the sig stays

Secondly, you are a troll and a nutcase.

Thirdly, you haven't answered any of my questions.

Fourth, you are a troll and a nutcase.  Did I call you a troll and a
nutcase.  Yes, I think I did.

George<Evolution is a fact>
Richard Dawkins - 27 Nov 2005 00:12 GMT
>>>>> <tripe>
>>>>> This guy is a troll from talk.origins. Don't respond.
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> George<Evolution is a fact>
I have lost count on how many posts you God-hating tahlking monkeys have
called people names, and cursed.You return insult for insult, and rudness
for rudness, then  you stand on your soap box and call other people trolls
and troublemakers You do not answer questions when asked, and avoid any
evidence when presented it. Youre double standards are both laughable and
annoying all in the same breath.
George - 27 Nov 2005 12:17 GMT
>>>>>> <tripe>
>>>>>> This guy is a troll from talk.origins. Don't respond.
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> avoid any evidence when presented it. Youre double standards are both
> laughable and annoying all in the same breath.

Is that a fact?  Well, why haven't you answered any of my questins, Ricky?
Hmmm?  I'm waiting?

George
Richard Dawkins - 27 Nov 2005 17:14 GMT
>>>>>>> <tripe>
>>>>>>> This guy is a troll from talk.origins. Don't respond.
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> George
Heres your answer fool
KERPLONK!
George - 27 Nov 2005 18:14 GMT
>>>>>>>> <tripe>
>>>>>>>> This guy is a troll from talk.origins. Don't respond.
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> Heres your answer fool
> KERPLONK!

Gee, that was original. NOT!  Since you have no answer, but will no doubt
return to post even more lame bullshit, it appears that the fool is the one
wearing egg on his face.  Go look in the mirror, Ricky? Be sure to have
your aluminum foil deflector beanie (AFDB) handy, just in case.

George
John Harshman - 27 Nov 2005 18:27 GMT
>>>>>>>>><tripe>
>>>>>>>>>This guy is a troll from talk.origins. Don't respond.
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
> wearing egg on his face.  Go look in the mirror, Ricky? Be sure to have
> your aluminum foil deflector beanie (AFDB) handy, just in case.

Richard is claiming to have killfiled you (as he has me too), and thus
will not see your reply. This is good news. Once he has killfiled all of
us, he won't see any replies to his posts and will have no reason to
post again.
John Harshman - 26 Nov 2005 02:17 GMT
> Last night there was a special on television on the Chemical revolution on
> creationism.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> of this happening by accident is astronomically impossible.
> An exciting time is on the horizon for creationism.

Is there a reason you posted this to sci.bio.paleontology? If you want
to expose your ignorance, talk.origins is a much better place for you.
This is a newsgroup for paleontology (the title might have been a clue),
and you didn't mention it in your post.
John Shakespeare - 27 Nov 2005 20:20 GMT
Hello Richard,

> Last night there was a special on television on the Chemical revolution on
> creationism.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> of this happening by accident is astronomically impossible.
> An exciting time is on the horizon for creationism.

Please direct this to talk.origins, where is is on-topic.
Discussion of evolution vs creation is explicitly off-topic in the
sci.bio.paleontology group. Here is the charter from the CFV:

"CHARTER

  The newsgroup sci.bio.paleontology is open to discussion on
  scientific topics concerning paleontology. All paleontological
  topics are welcome, such as discussions of extinct animals and
  plants, their physiology and phylogeny, fossils, paleoecology,
  extinction events, and recent discoveries, but all discussion of
  creation vs. evolution should take place in talk.origins, not
  sci.bio.paleontology."

Google groups provides a briefer description of the newsgroup:

"Life of the past (but no creation vs evolution!)."

Best Regards,
John.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.