A British Open Double Bogey
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?
From: BAR on 1 Aug 2010 22:24 In article <wclark2-585A0F.21243801082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > In article <MPG.26bf877e7e67eee698a185(a)news.giganews.com>, > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > In article <wclark2-B74F08.12584701082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > > > > > > > > > Evolution is a theory. > > > > > > > > > > Correct. I'd say at this point it is a theory that is a close to proven > > > > > as any theory can ever be, but it is still a theory. > > > > > > > > > > However, it is neither atheistic nor theistic. > > > > > > > > According to Science a theory cannot never become a certanty. > > > > > > > > The F word always comes into play when it comes down to the nunts and > > > > bolts. > > > > > > There is only one "F" word for nutters like you. Tell you what, why > > > don't you let us all in on the evidence for the faith-based origins of > > > human life? > > > > Where did the Big Bang originate? > > From a singularity in the general theory of relativity, which led to an > infinitely dense and hot Universe that then expanded. > > Not with and old man with a long white beard. "Not with and old man?" It appears that you have pissed on yourself again by throwing stones at glass houses.
From: bknight on 1 Aug 2010 22:28 On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 22:19:33 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >In article <4c561a13$0$5007$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, >nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... >> >> >> Ok Bert. Here's your chance to demonstrate that you're not an idiot. >> Explain how being beholden to a variety of corporate/government >> interests is better than being beholden to specific people. > >We need to go back to the question I posed earlier. What is the >difference in reading the spots on the innards of animals versus reading >the positions of the bodies in heaven? That is the question on the table >for you to answer. Either answer it or go away. > First, I gave you that answer. There is none. Superstitions are for shallow minds, as you must know. Next. How is that appropriate to the question you were just asked? As usual, when you're stumped you change the subject. BK
From: Carbon on 1 Aug 2010 22:28 On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 22:19:33 -0400, BAR wrote: > In article <4c561a13$0$5007$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 18:23:56 -0400, BAR wrote: >>> In article <4c55f2b5$0$15837$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, >>> nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... >>>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 17:49:14 -0400, BAR wrote: >>>>> In article <d3bcc339-516d-4092-8f49-b0c5e64bda99 >>>>> @l32g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... >>>>> >>>>>> Nancy Reagan refused to curtsy to Queen Elizabeth during a visit >>>>>> to London, because she considered herself the Queen's equal. >>>>> >>>>> I wouldn't bow to any King either. I am subservient to no man or >>>>> woman. >>>> >>>> You are subservient to the government/corporate interests that rule >>>> the country. Whether you see that or not is irrelevant. >>> >>> You can't read can you? >> >> Ok Bert. Here's your chance to demonstrate that you're not an idiot. >> Explain how being beholden to a variety of corporate/government >> interests is better than being beholden to specific people. > > We need to go back to the question I posed earlier. What is the > difference in reading the spots on the innards of animals versus > reading the positions of the bodies in heaven? That is the question on > the table for you to answer. Either answer it or go away. I answered it already, my differently abled little friend. Have you forgotten? I guess you must have. It must be so confusing trying to keep all these discussions straight.
From: BAR on 1 Aug 2010 22:28 In article <alangbaker-D22743.18350301082010(a)news.shawcable.com>, alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > In article <MPG.26bf877e7e67eee698a185(a)news.giganews.com>, > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > In article <wclark2-B74F08.12584701082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > > > > > > > > > Evolution is a theory. > > > > > > > > > > Correct. I'd say at this point it is a theory that is a close to proven > > > > > as any theory can ever be, but it is still a theory. > > > > > > > > > > However, it is neither atheistic nor theistic. > > > > > > > > According to Science a theory cannot never become a certanty. > > > > > > > > The F word always comes into play when it comes down to the nunts and > > > > bolts. > > > > > > There is only one "F" word for nutters like you. Tell you what, why > > > don't you let us all in on the evidence for the faith-based origins of > > > human life? > > > > Where did the Big Bang originate? > > Where did the christian god originate? The same place that the Hewbrew and Islamic God originated. I would suggest you read Karen Armstrong.
From: Carbon on 1 Aug 2010 22:33
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 18:35:03 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > In article <MPG.26bf877e7e67eee698a185(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR > <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >> In article <wclark2-B74F08.12584701082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- >> state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... >>>> >>>>>> Evolution is a theory. >>>>> >>>>> Correct. I'd say at this point it is a theory that is a close to >>>>> proven as any theory can ever be, but it is still a theory. >>>>> >>>>> However, it is neither atheistic nor theistic. >>>> >>>> According to Science a theory cannot never become a certanty. >>>> >>>> The F word always comes into play when it comes down to the nunts >>>> and bolts. >>> >>> There is only one "F" word for nutters like you. Tell you what, why >>> don't you let us all in on the evidence for the faith-based origins >>> of human life? >> >> Where did the Big Bang originate? > > Where did the christian god originate? Careful, you'll make his head explode. |