Natural Selection 2

Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it selects only
among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies,
variations are reduced, not increased (b).

For example, many mistakenly believe that insect or bacterial
resistances evolved in response to pesticides and antibiotics.
Instead, a previously lost capability was reestablished, making it
appear that something evolved (c), or

a mutation reduced the ability of certain pesticides or antibiotics to
bind to an organism’s proteins, or

a mutation reduced the regulatory function or transport capacity of
certain proteins, or

a damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduced the antibiotic’s
effectiveness even more (d), or

a few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the
pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable
insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less
competition and, therefore, proliferated (e).

b.	“[Natural selection] may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not
promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have
suggested.” Daniel Brooks, as quoted by Roger Lewin, “A Downward Slope
to Greater Diversity,” Science, Vol. 217, 24 September 1982, p. 1240.

“The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection
is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that
natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit.
Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.” Stephen
Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History, Vol. 86,
June–July 1977, p. 28.

c.	G. Z. Opadia-Kadima, “How the Slot Machine Led Biologists Astray,”
Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 124, 1987, pp. 127–135.

d.	Eric Penrose, “Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics—A Case of Un-
Natural Selection,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 35,
September 1998, pp. 76–83.

e.	Well-preserved bodies of members of the Franklin expedition, frozen
in the Canadian Arctic in 1845, contain bacteria resistant to
antibiotics. Because the first antibiotics were developed in the early
1940s, these resistant bacteria could not have evolved in response to
antibiotics. Contamination has been eliminated as a possibility. [See
Rick McGuire, “Eerie: Human Arctic Fossils Yield Resistant Bacteria,”
Medical Tribune, 29 December 1988, p. 1.]

“The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse
kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the
populations exposed to these man-made compounds.” Francisco J. Ayala,
“The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, Vol. 239,
September 1978, p. 65.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences8.html#wp1194028

The only time creationism and science should EVER be used in the same
sentence is when the words "is not" has been inserted between them

On Jun 3, 12:26 pm, Ken  wrote:
> The only time creationism and science should EVER be used in the same
> sentence is when the words "is not" has been inserted between them

REPLY:  Im wondering if there is a parallel between people who think
'creationism is bullcrap'  and illicit sexuality ; so, could i ask you
to describe your Sexual Standards please ?  Thanks.

The definition of sexuality is someone's ability to experience or
express sexual feelings.   What then is illicit sexuality?  
-- 
********
David WG
********

Pahu78@gmail.com wrote:
> Natural Selection 2
> 
> Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it selects only
> among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies,
> variations are reduced, not increased (b).

Of course, but several other mechanisms can, and are then acted upon 
by natural selection.

It is sad to see people like Pahu78 desperately driven to posting 
junk science like this because they are so rattled that evolution 
removes the only justification they had for their god figure.

If you want to read about it, here is a good start:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

"The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points 
unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over 
time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be 
preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts."

The whole world regards evolution as established fact - the only 
people who continue to deny it are evangelical theists.

regards, Ian

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 3, 12:26 pm, Ken  wrote:
>> The only time creationism and science should EVER be used in the same
>> sentence is when the words "is not" has been inserted between them
> 
> REPLY:  Im wondering if there is a parallel between people who think
> 'creationism is bullcrap'  and illicit sexuality ; so, could i ask you
> to describe your Sexual Standards please ?  Thanks.

If you have a hypothesis, then by all means establish it by 
presenting your evidence. It isn't our responsibility to do your 
research for you.

But don't waste time on that now. We are still waiting for real 
positive evidence for the existence of your magical entity.

There's no point in your coming here to post anything at all without 
establishing that first.

regards, Ian

On Jun 3, 1:20 pm, David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
> The definition of sexuality is someone's ability to experience or
> express sexual feelings.   What then is illicit sexuality?  
> --
> ********
> David WG
> ********

REPLY:  Ok...then :  Sexual Standards .

On Jun 3, 1:40 pm, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 12:26 pm, Ken  wrote:
> >> The only time creationism and science should EVER be used in the same
> >> sentence is when the words "is not" has been inserted between them
>
> > REPLY:  Im wondering if there is a parallel between people who think
> > 'creationism is bullcrap'  and illicit sexuality ; so, could i ask you> > to describe your Sexual Standards please ?  Thanks.
>
> If you have a hypothesis, then by all means establish it by
> presenting your evidence. It isn't our responsibility to do your
> research for you.
>
> But don't waste time on that now. We are still waiting for real
> positive evidence for the existence of your magical entity.
>
> There's no point in your coming here to post anything at all without
> establishing that first.
>
> regards, Ian

REPLY:  As you know, being an atheist....there isnt ANY evidence that
would ever be enough for you.  If you had it, you still wouldnt be
willing to give The Creator charge of your life. So, why even play the
charade Ian ?    More to the point,  can you tell us why you think
everything around you appears to be ultimately 'by accident'  , why
you believe your daily life is the same way, why your human body seems
that way to you,  et al...  And, why you want there to be no hope to
your existence ?   Have you ever given answers to these questions
before ?

On Jun 3, 1:40 pm, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 12:26 pm, Ken  wrote:
> >> The only time creationism and science should EVER be used in the same
> >> sentence is when the words "is not" has been inserted between them
>
> > REPLY:  Im wondering if there is a parallel between people who think
> > 'creationism is bullcrap'  and illicit sexuality ; so, could i ask you> > to describe your Sexual Standards please ?  Thanks.
>
> If you have a hypothesis, then by all means establish it by
> presenting your evidence. It isn't our responsibility to do your
> research for you.
>
> But don't waste time on that now. We are still waiting for real
> positive evidence for the existence of your magical entity.
>
> There's no point in your coming here to post anything at all without
> establishing that first.
>
> regards, Ian

REPLY:  You said :'There's no point in your coming here to post
anything '

ME:  Ian,  Im here to help balance out the philosophies, tenets, and
assertions  of the Atheist Faith for the interest of the Newcomer,
Lurker, Passerby.  So, its vital i remain . Thanks for your concern
though.

On Jun 3, 12:06 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"  wrote:
> On Jun 3, 1:40 pm, Ian Smith 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Jun 3, 12:26 pm, Ken  wrote:
> > >> The only time creationism and science should EVER be used in the same> > >> sentence is when the words "is not" has been inserted between them
>
> > > REPLY:  Im wondering if there is a parallel between people who think> > > 'creationism is bullcrap'  and illicit sexuality ; so, could i ask you
> > > to describe your Sexual Standards please ?  Thanks.
>
> > If you have a hypothesis, then by all means establish it by
> > presenting your evidence. It isn't our responsibility to do your
> > research for you.
>
> > But don't waste time on that now. We are still waiting for real
> > positive evidence for the existence of your magical entity.
>
> > There's no point in your coming here to post anything at all without
> > establishing that first.
>
> > regards, Ian
>
> REPLY:  You said :'There's no point in your coming here to post
> anything '
>
> ME:  Ian,  Im here cause im an annoying fundy ASSHOLE

The message 
from "IlBeBauck@gmail.com"  contains these words:

> Ok...then :  Sexual Standards 

What do you think are sexual standards?  
-- 
********
David WG
********

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

> 
> REPLY:  As you know, being an atheist....there isnt ANY evidence that
> would ever be enough for you.  If you had it, you still wouldnt be
> willing to give The Creator charge of your life. So, why even play the
> charade Ian ?

Go on, why not call my bluff then?

As you are an ex atheist I'm sure that you have seen ample 
convincing positive evidence to make you change sides as you claimed 
to have done.

Share this evidence with us so we can see how you came, from having 
no belief in a god, to believing that one exists and then to 
choosing, with apparently complete confidence, which one to follow.

Such a decision, to believe that a magical entity exists and then to 
decide which of the magic entities on offer was the right one must 
have taken an extraordinary amount of solid and detailed evidence.

Do what we've been asking for a long time and share this with us.

regards, Ian

On Jun 3, 2:35 pm, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> Pah...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Natural Selection 2
>
> > Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it selects only
> > among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies,
> > variations are reduced, not increased (b).
>
> Of course, but several other mechanisms can, and are then acted upon
> by natural selection.

Pahu:  Such as?
>
> It is sad to see people like Pahu78 desperately driven to posting
> junk science like this because they are so rattled that evolution
> removes the only justification they had for their god figure.

Pahu:  Is it possible that evolutionists ignore scientific facts
because they are so rattled that creation removes the only
justification they had for their rejection of a Creator? Why do refer
to the facts I am sharing as "junk science"? Most of the information I
am sharing is from the following scientists:

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred
Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard
A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M.
Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer,
Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl
Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price,
Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling,
Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess,
James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp,
Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr,
Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M.
Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe,
A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin
Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk,
Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter
Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy
Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob
DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K.
Borucki, Joshua Fischman, . John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard
Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review
science journals:

American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Nature
New scientist
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews

>
> If you want to read about it, here is a good start:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
> andhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Pahu:  Talk Origins is notoriously biased against creation and for
evolution despite the facts.

>
> "The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points
> unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over
> time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be
> preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts."

Pahu:  That quote is a good example of unsupported assertions. Where
is all that evidence for evolution?

>
> The whole world regards evolution as established fact - the only
> people who continue to deny it are evangelical theists.
>
> regards, Ian

Pahu:  You have been deceived as I have shown above.

On Jun 4, 3:23 am, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > REPLY:  As you know, being an atheist....there isnt ANY evidence that
> > would ever be enough for you.  If you had it, you still wouldnt be
> > willing to give The Creator charge of your life. So, why even play the
> > charade Ian ?
>
> Go on, why not call my bluff then?
>
> As you are an ex atheist I'm sure that you have seen ample
> convincing positive evidence to make you change sides as you claimed
> to have done.
>
> Share this evidence with us so we can see how you came, from having
> no belief in a god, to believing that one exists and then to
> choosing, with apparently complete confidence, which one to follow.
>
> Such a decision, to believe that a magical entity exists and then to
> decide which of the magic entities on offer was the right one must
> have taken an extraordinary amount of solid and detailed evidence.
>
> Do what we've been asking for a long time and share this with us.
>
> regards, Ian

Pahu:  What evidence do you have that a Creator God does not exist?
Can you honestly claim to have examined every nook and cranny of the
universe to prove your universal negative?

On Jun 4, 9:25 am, Pah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2:35 pm, Ian Smith 
> wrote:
>
> > Pah...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Natural Selection 2
>
> > > Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it selects only
> > > among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies> > > variations are reduced, not increased (b).
>
> > Of course, but several other mechanisms can, and are then acted upon
> > by natural selection.
>
> Pahu:  Such as?
>
>
>
> > It is sad to see people like Pahu78 desperately driven to posting
> > junk science like this because they are so rattled that evolution
> > removes the only justification they had for their god figure.
>
> Pahu:  Is it possible that evolutionists ignore scientific facts
> because they are so rattled that creation removes the only
> justification they had for their rejection of a Creator? Why do refer
> to the facts I am sharing as "junk science"? Most of the information I
> am sharing is from the following scientists:
>
> Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred
> Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard
> A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M.
> Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer,
> Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl
> Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price,
> Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling,
> Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess,
> James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp,
> Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr,
> Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M.
> Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe,
> A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin
> Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk,
> Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter
> Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy
> Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob
> DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K.
> Borucki, Joshua Fischman, . John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard
> Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, etc.

Never heard of any of them

>
> The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review
> science journals:
>
> American journal of science
> Astronomical journal
> Astrophysics and space science
> Astrophysical journal
> Bioscience
> Geology
> Icarus
> Nature
> New scientist
> Physical review
> Physical review d
> Physical review letters
> Science
> Space science reviews
>
>
>
> > If you want to read about it, here is a good start:
>
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
> > andhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
>


> Pahu:  Talk Origins is notoriously biased against creation and for
> evolution despite the facts.

You wouldn't know facts if they were soaked in petrol, lit afire and
shoved up your butt!


> > "The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points
> > unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over
> > time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be
> > preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts."
>
> Pahu:  That quote is a good example of unsupported assertions. Where
> is all that evidence for evolution?

EVERYWHERE. FOOL


> > The whole world regards evolution as established fact - the only
> > people who continue to deny it are evangelical theists.
>
> > regards, Ian
>
> Pahu:  You have been deceived as I have shown above.

Sorry, FOOL, you didn't show us anything above

A brainwashed fundy nutcase pointing his brainwashed fundy finger at
everyone else, (except the other brainwashed fundy Dimwit) and saying:
"You're all deceived"
You the one that needs deprogramming, FOOL

The message

from Pahu78@gmail.com contains these words:

> Pahu:  What evidence do you have that a Creator God does not exist?
> Can you honestly claim to have examined every nook and cranny of the
> universe to prove your universal negative?

We do not have to make any search for your god for you are the person
claiming that it exists.  What evidence can you show us that might
convince that it does?   

-- 
********
David WG
********

Pahu78@gmail.com wrote:

>>
>> Do what we've been asking for a long time and share this with us.
>>
>> regards, Ian
> 
> Pahu:  What evidence do you have that a Creator God does not exist?
> Can you honestly claim to have examined every nook and cranny of the
> universe to prove your universal negative?

Of course not - for this very reason there can never be a "proof 
that god does not exist", any god.

However - if you going to follow this line of reasoning then I'd 
have to belief in Thor, Athena ... Apollo etc too. But, strangely, 
we all seem happy to acknowledge them as being mythical.

So, I'm not the one proposing that this god of yours is real. As far 
as I am concerned it sits with all the other 460 odd gods as being 
ancient human mythology.

I am, however, prepared to consider any evidence you may have...

After all, you (and Dave) apparently have taken a decision that this 
god (with its associated creation story, Jesus being god's son, born 
of a virgin, performed miracles, responds to prayers, died but came 
back to life, in some way has "saved" us all from evil, created the 
universe, created all living things, etc etc) is real. Now, the 
story you apparently believe in really is extraordinary (literally 
supernatural), with all the associated magic and you wouldn't have 
taken a decision that it was all true unless you had some real, 
positive, indeed very exceptional, copious, unambiguous, 
overwhelming evidence from absolutely cast-iron validated, multiple 
sources to back it up.

To believe something so extraordinary as being real, when it sounds 
like a bit of an old myth (with the magic and all and being so 
similar to the other 460 odd previous stories we all accept as 
myths), would be really foolish without having such overwhelming 
evidence wouldn't it?

All we ask, if you are going to keep popping up here to promote this 
god of yours, is that you let us in on this overwhelming evidence.

Now, that isn't too much to ask, is it?

regards, Ian

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:22:12 +0100, Ian Smith
 wrote:

>Pahu78@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Do what we've been asking for a long time and share this with us.
>>>
>>> regards, Ian
>> 
>> Pahu:  What evidence do you have that a Creator God does not exist?
>> Can you honestly claim to have examined every nook and cranny of the
>> universe to prove your universal negative?
>
>Of course not - for this very reason there can never be a "proof 
>that god does not exist", any god.
>
>However - if you going to follow this line of reasoning then I'd 
>have to belief in Thor, Athena ... Apollo etc too. But, strangely, 
>we all seem happy to acknowledge them as being mythical.
>
>So, I'm not the one proposing that this god of yours is real. As far 
>as I am concerned it sits with all the other 460 odd gods as being 
>ancient human mythology.
>
>I am, however, prepared to consider any evidence you may have...

They have an absolute belief for no rational reason, they "know"
theirs is real. The consequence is that they "know" the others aren't.

They can't understand the concept that when one has no reason to
believe something, one doesn't.

They can't tell the difference between not believing it and believing
its opposite.

Or the concept of the falsifiable default "no it isn't" pending
evidence to falsify the default.

Pahu78@gmail.com wrote:

>> Of course, but several other mechanisms can, and are then acted upon
>> by natural selection.
> 
> Pahu:  Such as?

I'll give you two examples - gene duplication through defective 
copying and mutation. Both are well known and well documented and 
can be seen by examining the genetic codes.

>> It is sad to see people like Pahu78 desperately driven to posting
>> junk science like this because they are so rattled that evolution
>> removes the only justification they had for their god figure.
> 
> Pahu:  Is it possible that evolutionists ignore scientific facts
> because they are so rattled that creation removes the only
> justification they had for their rejection of a Creator? 

Not really - that just isn't credible. Firstly, over the ages the 
majority of these scientists were good christians and didn't reject 
the idea of a creator. Many such scientists still are christians and 
don't reject the idea of a creator. The vast majority of christian 
scientists don't reject evolution. Any scientist not following the 
observable evidence will be exposed by others trying to replicate 
their work - and there are many credible christian scientists who 
would take great delight in doing so.

> Why do refer
> to the facts I am sharing as "junk science"? Most of the information I
> am sharing is from the following scientists:

You are posting quotes from creationist sites, not from the 
scientists you list. It is easy to take these out of context, as the 
majority are. Scientists often write sentences such as "It is 
statistically difficult to see how this could have happened and 
appears to be an impossibility." They then continue with "However, 
..." and show how it is indeed possible, indeed sometimes quite 
probable. Selecting such out-of-context quotes is called quote 
mining and is clearly dishonest in that it frequently reverses the 
point being made by the author:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining

> 
> Carl Sagan, Stephen W. Hawking

I can't spend time investigating all the names on your list but 
neither of the above believe in your god, or the associated stories.


>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
>> andhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> 
> Pahu:  Talk Origins is notoriously biased against creation and for
> evolution despite the facts.

How can it be so biased? No-one can provide any evidence to support 
creationism. Note again: being critical of other peoples ideas (as 
your posts are) doesn't constitute evidence for your own position. 
This is called the Argument from Ignorance or the Argument from 
Personal Incredulity and is known to be a common logical fallacy.

> 
>> "The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points
>> unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over
>> time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be
>> preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts."
> 
> Pahu:  That quote is a good example of unsupported assertions. Where
> is all that evidence for evolution?

I've avoided TalkOrigins links, just to make a point:

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
or
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

If you follow these links you will find any amount of solid positive 
evidence. There are plenty of excellent books to read. I'd recommend 
those by Richard Dawkins or Matt Ridley. Museums are stuffed full of 
evidence in the fossils and we can now look inside the genes and 
these validate what we knew before that. All the evidence, from 
multiple branches of science, interlock together to a point where we 
now regard evolution by common descent as being fact. If it were not 
true, then none of the overwhelming amount of evidence we now have 
would make any sense.

> 
>> The whole world regards evolution as established fact - the only
>> people who continue to deny it are evangelical theists.

> 
> Pahu:  You have been deceived as I have shown above.

I'd expect you to say that, of course, but we both know that it 
isn't the case. My statement remains absolutely true.

regards, Ian

On Jun 4, 1:03 pm, Ian Smith 
wrote:

> I'd expect you to say that, of course, but we both know that it
> isn't the case. My statement remains absolutely true.
>
> regards, Ian

Ever get the feeling you're talking to a brick wall, only less
intelligent?

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 12:06:06 -0700 (PDT), "IlBeBauck@gmail.com" 
wrote:

>On Jun 3, 1:40 pm, Ian Smith 
>wrote:
>> IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Jun 3, 12:26 pm, Ken  wrote:
>> >> The only time creationism and science should EVER be used in the same
>> >> sentence is when the words "is not" has been inserted between them
>>
>> > REPLY:  Im wondering if there is a parallel between people who think
>> > 'creationism is bullcrap'  and illicit sexuality ; so, could i ask you
>> > to describe your Sexual Standards please ?  Thanks.
>>
>> If you have a hypothesis, then by all means establish it by
>> presenting your evidence. It isn't our responsibility to do your
>> research for you.
>>
>> But don't waste time on that now. We are still waiting for real
>> positive evidence for the existence of your magical entity.
>>
>> There's no point in your coming here to post anything at all without
>> establishing that first.
>>
>> regards, Ian
>
>REPLY:  You said :'There's no point in your coming here to post
>anything '
>
>ME:  Ian,  Im here to help balance out the philosophies, tenets, and
>assertions  of the Atheist Faith for the interest of the Newcomer,
>Lurker, Passerby.  So, its vital i remain . Thanks for your concern
>though.

In other words, you are here to talk through your arse, about something which is purely a
figment of over active theist imaginations.
-- 
     The spelling, like any opinion stated here
                 is purely my own

                #162  BAAWA Knight.

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:06:06 -0700, IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote :

>> If you have a hypothesis, then by all means establish it by presenting
>> your evidence. It isn't our responsibility to do your research for you.
>>
>> But don't waste time on that now. We are still waiting for real
>> positive evidence for the existence of your magical entity.
>>
>> There's no point in your coming here to post anything at all without
>> establishing that first.
>>
>> regards, Ian
> 
> REPLY:  You said :'There's no point in your coming here to post anything
> '
> 
> ME:  Ian,  Im here to help balance out the philosophies, tenets, and
> assertions  of the Atheist Faith for the interest of the Newcomer,
> Lurker, Passerby.  So, its vital i remain . Thanks for your concern
> though.

It is a very dishonnest answer. 

If you have something to add in favor of your hypothesis, then say it, 
else follow your advices and shut up.

From your writings, you believe in a particular kind of a particular 
god.  Hundred of millions believe in other gods, or variants of thoses. 
Each and every one claim that his/her gods are the one that must be 
trully believed. Further more, they, you, are unable to tell why they 
believe they choose the good god/pantheon option. When they not threaten 
to kill believer of the other faiths. A reasonable conclusion is that 
choosing any known faith is very likely to be an error. So the better 
choice is not to opt for any faith.

Atheism is nothing but the *lack* of faith in god or pantheon.
 1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is
 declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his
 authority and veracity; reliance on testimony.
 [1913 Webster]