On The Disparity of Species

[Hollie]

Swineodon....the two models are diametric opposites.

Your inane post suggests that transparent and opaque can apply to the same object....

....get a dictionary...it might help.


Representative of the fact that fanatics like you refuse to accept the very words of the men you ostensibly champion is the way you ignored Gould's own words that verify both that he was a Marxist, and that Marxism was the inspiration for his 'punctuated equilibrium' theory.



But....let's try to teach you once again:


a. "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302


And this:


b. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182



Busted.

Umm sorry, dear, but your mindless cutting and pasting is busted.

a. "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302

You can't even cut ands paste correctly. The out of context "quote" is on page 207.

Tell you pals at Harun Yahya to actually read the material.

You're a fraud.


And this:


b. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182


Yep. Another fraud. You have cut and pasted this fraud 4 separate times now and you have been shown on 4 occasions that your parsed, edited and out of context "quote" is creationist fraud.


You're really the worst kind of liar because you know you're a fraud yet you persist in your fraud.

Prove it.

Already did.

You're a cut and paste fraud and a liar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Umm sorry, dear, but your mindless cutting and pasting is busted.




You can't even cut ands paste correctly. The out of context "quote" is on page 207.

Tell you pals at Harun Yahya to actually read the material.

You're a fraud.


And this:


b. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182


Yep. Another fraud. You have cut and pasted this fraud 4 separate times now and you have been shown on 4 occasions that your parsed, edited and out of context "quote" is creationist fraud.


You're really the worst kind of liar because you know you're a fraud yet you persist in your fraud.

Prove it.

Already did.

You're a cut and paste fraud and a liar.

So....you can't prove it?

You just lie about it?


Sometimes I just want to slap you senseless...but I see somebody did so already.

 

[Hollie]

Prove it.

Already did.

You're a cut and paste fraud and a liar.

So....you can't prove it?

You just lie about it?


Sometimes I just want to slap you senseless...but I see somebody did so already.

I can see you're babbling incoherently because you failed to read the prior page where your cut and paste fraud was shown for what it is: lies you stole from Harun Yahya.

Don't be angry with me because your fraud has now been exposed on 4 separate occasions.

You just lie about your fraudulent cutting and pasting.

 

[Wry Catcher]

One can certainly believe in Darwin's theory.....but it should be admitted that said belief is of the same variety as any other religious belief: it is based on faith rather than evidence.


One of my pals said 'You must realize that Gould is an avid proponent if evolution'.....

Of course I do. That's why I provide Gould's words.....they support my position, i.e., that evidence for Darwinian evolution is lacking.
As follows:




1. Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:

a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and

b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.




2. In order for Darwin's premises to be correct, as new species first began to emerge from a common ancestor, they would at first be quite similar to each other, and that large differences in the forms of life- what paleontologists call 'disparity'- would only emerge much later as a result of the accumulation of many tiny random changes.
See Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt."

3. The vocabulary used herein is precise: 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.

a. The term 'diversity' is a way to refer to minor differences, but may be seen in genera or species.

The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

Get that? The earlier strata do not include evolutionary 'attempts' leading to the new species!





4. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould studied the Burgess Shale. " Stephen Jay Gould's book "Wonderful Life," published in 1989, brought the Burgess Shale fossils to the public's attention. Gould suggests that the extraordinary diversity of the fossils indicate that life forms at the time were much more disparate in body form than those that survive today, and that many of the unique lineages were evolutionary experiments that became extinct."
Burgess Shale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Note the reference to 'disparate in body form.')

a. " First, a question of origins: How could so much anatomical variety evolve so quickly? In particular, must novel evolutionary mechanisms [that means mechanisms contrary to those that Darwin proposed] be proposed for such a burst of activity?

Second, a question of consequences: How many distinct lineages arose in the Cambrian explosion? How many survived to leave modern organisms as descendants? Why have no new animal phyla (with the single exception of Bryozoa) evolved in more than 500 million years since the Cambrian explosion?" Conway-Morris and Gould, "Showdown on the Burgess Shale" 1998


b. Gould goes on to say that there is no answer to the query:" The question of origins: I devoted only a few pages to this fascinating topic in Wonderful Life because so little meaningful evidence exists, and fruitful science must be defined by palpable and potentially decisive data, not by our subjective sense of intrigue or importance."

Gould...who supports 'evolution,' admits that he can't point to evidence for same!
Darwin: a theory without evidence.






5. It is important to study the above, as Gould is a recognized authority on the subject, and because he is honest to state that " because so little meaningful evidence exists,..."

a. Compare this attitude of an expert to the catty and vituperative posts by the ignorant, the anti-science, the rabid Darwinism-as-a -religion folks. They love-love-love Darwinism....and hate the fact that there is no evidence for same.
That's why they get so angry.....







6. I have asked several times why they find it so difficult to recognize that Darwin's theory may not be the answer to evolution.

Here, from Richard Dawkins, English ethologist, evolutionary biologist....and strident atheist, is the real answer as to why they are so wedded to it:

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."






Without Darwin, secularism falls apart.


Really funny, in an ironic sort of way.....they despise religion....yet apply it's methodology to their belief in Darwin.

It's all about faith.

Wow, Mizzzy is on a role. Hey, since Mizzzy knows all maybe she can answer this question; it's kept me awake many a night:

What came first, the Chicken or the Egg?

Or did Henny Penny appear naked - not a feather to her name - in the Garden of Eden, as did Adam (If I recall God gave him a fig leaf)?

Oh, and now this occurs to me, did foghorn leghorn appear before Henny Penny, and was his wish bone taken to create Henny Penny?

 

[Hollie]

One can certainly believe in Darwin's theory.....but it should be admitted that said belief is of the same variety as any other religious belief: it is based on faith rather than evidence.


One of my pals said 'You must realize that Gould is an avid proponent if evolution'.....

Of course I do. That's why I provide Gould's words.....they support my position, i.e., that evidence for Darwinian evolution is lacking.
As follows:




1. Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:

a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and

b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.




2. In order for Darwin's premises to be correct, as new species first began to emerge from a common ancestor, they would at first be quite similar to each other, and that large differences in the forms of life- what paleontologists call 'disparity'- would only emerge much later as a result of the accumulation of many tiny random changes.
See Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt."

3. The vocabulary used herein is precise: 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.

a. The term 'diversity' is a way to refer to minor differences, but may be seen in genera or species.

The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

Get that? The earlier strata do not include evolutionary 'attempts' leading to the new species!





4. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould studied the Burgess Shale. " Stephen Jay Gould's book "Wonderful Life," published in 1989, brought the Burgess Shale fossils to the public's attention. Gould suggests that the extraordinary diversity of the fossils indicate that life forms at the time were much more disparate in body form than those that survive today, and that many of the unique lineages were evolutionary experiments that became extinct."
Burgess Shale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Note the reference to 'disparate in body form.')

a. " First, a question of origins: How could so much anatomical variety evolve so quickly? In particular, must novel evolutionary mechanisms [that means mechanisms contrary to those that Darwin proposed] be proposed for such a burst of activity?

Second, a question of consequences: How many distinct lineages arose in the Cambrian explosion? How many survived to leave modern organisms as descendants? Why have no new animal phyla (with the single exception of Bryozoa) evolved in more than 500 million years since the Cambrian explosion?" Conway-Morris and Gould, "Showdown on the Burgess Shale" 1998


b. Gould goes on to say that there is no answer to the query:" The question of origins: I devoted only a few pages to this fascinating topic in Wonderful Life because so little meaningful evidence exists, and fruitful science must be defined by palpable and potentially decisive data, not by our subjective sense of intrigue or importance."

Gould...who supports 'evolution,' admits that he can't point to evidence for same!
Darwin: a theory without evidence.






5. It is important to study the above, as Gould is a recognized authority on the subject, and because he is honest to state that " because so little meaningful evidence exists,..."

a. Compare this attitude of an expert to the catty and vituperative posts by the ignorant, the anti-science, the rabid Darwinism-as-a -religion folks. They love-love-love Darwinism....and hate the fact that there is no evidence for same.
That's why they get so angry.....







6. I have asked several times why they find it so difficult to recognize that Darwin's theory may not be the answer to evolution.

Here, from Richard Dawkins, English ethologist, evolutionary biologist....and strident atheist, is the real answer as to why they are so wedded to it:

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."






Without Darwin, secularism falls apart.


Really funny, in an ironic sort of way.....they despise religion....yet apply it's methodology to their belief in Darwin.

It's all about faith.

Wow, Mizzzy is on a role. Hey, since Mizzzy knows all maybe she can answer this question; it's kept me awake many a night:

What came first, the Chicken or the Egg?

Or did Henny Penny appear naked - not a feather to her name - in the Garden of Eden, as did Adam (If I recall God gave him a fig leaf)?

Oh, and now this occurs to me, did foghorn leghorn appear before Henny Penny, and was his wish bone taken to create Henny Penny?

She is a hoot.

I took some time to search for the source of her cut and paste "quotes". In addition to the usual, notorious places where the Flat Earth crowd congregates such as the ICR and Harun Yahya, she steals liberally from here:


Genesis Park

Genesis Park | Dinosaurs: living evidence of a powerful Creator

Yeah, drooling, Dark Ages wannabes at "genesispark".


And here is their "missionary" statement

About Genesis Park

The purpose of Genesis Park is to showcase the evidence that dinosaurs and man were created together and have co-existed throughout history.

Oh yeah, man and dinosaurs frolicking together in a world created 6,000 years ago.

What a joke.

I'm afraid that for fundamentalist, Flat Earth cranks, such as PC, not facts, not evidence, not reality itself can penetrate the twisted, fundamentalist mindset.

 

[Wry Catcher]

One can certainly believe in Darwin's theory.....but it should be admitted that said belief is of the same variety as any other religious belief: it is based on faith rather than evidence.


One of my pals said 'You must realize that Gould is an avid proponent if evolution'.....

Of course I do. That's why I provide Gould's words.....they support my position, i.e., that evidence for Darwinian evolution is lacking.
As follows:




1. Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:

a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and

b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.




2. In order for Darwin's premises to be correct, as new species first began to emerge from a common ancestor, they would at first be quite similar to each other, and that large differences in the forms of life- what paleontologists call 'disparity'- would only emerge much later as a result of the accumulation of many tiny random changes.
See Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt."

3. The vocabulary used herein is precise: 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.

a. The term 'diversity' is a way to refer to minor differences, but may be seen in genera or species.

The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

Get that? The earlier strata do not include evolutionary 'attempts' leading to the new species!





4. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould studied the Burgess Shale. " Stephen Jay Gould's book "Wonderful Life," published in 1989, brought the Burgess Shale fossils to the public's attention. Gould suggests that the extraordinary diversity of the fossils indicate that life forms at the time were much more disparate in body form than those that survive today, and that many of the unique lineages were evolutionary experiments that became extinct."
Burgess Shale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Note the reference to 'disparate in body form.')

a. " First, a question of origins: How could so much anatomical variety evolve so quickly? In particular, must novel evolutionary mechanisms [that means mechanisms contrary to those that Darwin proposed] be proposed for such a burst of activity?

Second, a question of consequences: How many distinct lineages arose in the Cambrian explosion? How many survived to leave modern organisms as descendants? Why have no new animal phyla (with the single exception of Bryozoa) evolved in more than 500 million years since the Cambrian explosion?" Conway-Morris and Gould, "Showdown on the Burgess Shale" 1998


b. Gould goes on to say that there is no answer to the query:" The question of origins: I devoted only a few pages to this fascinating topic in Wonderful Life because so little meaningful evidence exists, and fruitful science must be defined by palpable and potentially decisive data, not by our subjective sense of intrigue or importance."

Gould...who supports 'evolution,' admits that he can't point to evidence for same!
Darwin: a theory without evidence.






5. It is important to study the above, as Gould is a recognized authority on the subject, and because he is honest to state that " because so little meaningful evidence exists,..."

a. Compare this attitude of an expert to the catty and vituperative posts by the ignorant, the anti-science, the rabid Darwinism-as-a -religion folks. They love-love-love Darwinism....and hate the fact that there is no evidence for same.
That's why they get so angry.....







6. I have asked several times why they find it so difficult to recognize that Darwin's theory may not be the answer to evolution.

Here, from Richard Dawkins, English ethologist, evolutionary biologist....and strident atheist, is the real answer as to why they are so wedded to it:

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."






Without Darwin, secularism falls apart.


Really funny, in an ironic sort of way.....they despise religion....yet apply it's methodology to their belief in Darwin.

It's all about faith.

Wow, Mizzzy is on a role. Hey, since Mizzzy knows all maybe she can answer this question; it's kept me awake many a night:

What came first, the Chicken or the Egg?

Or did Henny Penny appear naked - not a feather to her name - in the Garden of Eden, as did Adam (If I recall God gave him a fig leaf)?

Oh, and now this occurs to me, did foghorn leghorn appear before Henny Penny, and was his wish bone taken to create Henny Penny?

She is a hoot.

I took some time to search for the source of her cut and paste "quotes". In addition to the usual, notorious places where the Flat Earth crowd congregates such as the ICR and Harun Yahya, she steals liberally from here:


Genesis Park

Genesis Park | Dinosaurs: living evidence of a powerful Creator

Yeah, drooling, Dark Ages wannabes at "genesispark".


And here is their "missionary" statement

About Genesis Park

The purpose of Genesis Park is to showcase the evidence that dinosaurs and man were created together and have co-existed throughout history.

Oh yeah, man and dinosaurs frolicking together in a world created 6,000 years ago.

What a joke.

I'm afraid that for fundamentalist, Flat Earth cranks, such as PC, not facts, not evidence, not reality itself can penetrate the twisted, fundamentalist mindset.

I've taken to addressing PC as Mizzzy since her cut and paste posts drone on, hence the zzz.

 

[Ernie S.]

Impossible to prove (or disprove), as is Creationism and alien teraforming.
My theory? Kind of "Intelligent Design". I tend to think that an all powerful Creator, who I choose to call God, provided the tools and the rules and set it all in motion.
I believe in science AND God. I don't see those beliefs as mutually exclusive.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are quoting Gould out of context. Gould was a strong proponent of Evolution. Too bad he's not alive to refute your out of context quotes.

There's actually a quite simple explanation for the Cambrian explosion which is what the Burgess Shale preserves.

When complex life first began to evolve, ecological niches were empty. That explains why life first evolved into such disparate forms so rapidly. There was no competition.

Later, those ecological niches became filled with established species, making it more difficult for disparate forms to successfully become established. This explains why few new phyla have evolved since the Cambrian. The ecological niches have already been filled with established phyla.

Gould probably wrote this explanation somewhere in his book. You probably didn't read his book and are quoting rhetorical questions that he then answered.

I would bet hard money that someone told you that, and that you couldn't explain what you just said if your life depended on it.

I am a science writer.

Enjoy my blog--http://markgelbart.wordpress.com/

You lucky thing!

There is so much you can learn from my posts!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Right up there with Scientology and god.

And Darwinism. None are provable, but Darwinism relies on the idea that because diverse species evolved over millions of years, and we can't find fossil records to support our claims,you're just going to have to believe our version of the truth.

Actually, "Darwinism", (and what you really mean is Darwin's Theory of Evolution), has withstood the rigors of the scientific method and peer review. So yes, it's provable and not in question among the relevant scientific community.

If you know otherwise, you may wish to email your work to the journal Nature for example.

If you are so certain that you have the data refuting "Darwinism", put you work before peer review and let's see how you do.

This, consistent with so very many of your blind posts, it total nonsense.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Already did.

You're a cut and paste fraud and a liar.

So....you can't prove it?

You just lie about it?


Sometimes I just want to slap you senseless...but I see somebody did so already.

I can see you're babbling incoherently because you failed to read the prior page where your cut and paste fraud was shown for what it is: lies you stole from Harun Yahya.

Don't be angry with me because your fraud has now been exposed on 4 separate occasions.

You just lie about your fraudulent cutting and pasting.

I know nothing about your boss, 'Harun Yahya'.....but my posts are correct and you've never 'proven' otherwise.

 

[Hollie]

And Darwinism. None are provable, but Darwinism relies on the idea that because diverse species evolved over millions of years, and we can't find fossil records to support our claims,you're just going to have to believe our version of the truth.

Actually, "Darwinism", (and what you really mean is Darwin's Theory of Evolution), has withstood the rigors of the scientific method and peer review. So yes, it's provable and not in question among the relevant scientific community.

If you know otherwise, you may wish to email your work to the journal Nature for example.

If you are so certain that you have the data refuting "Darwinism", put you work before peer review and let's see how you do.

This, consistent with so very many of your blind posts, it total nonsense.

Had you spent time in elementary school and college, you might have learned about science.

 

[Hollie]

So....you can't prove it?

You just lie about it?


Sometimes I just want to slap you senseless...but I see somebody did so already.

I can see you're babbling incoherently because you failed to read the prior page where your cut and paste fraud was shown for what it is: lies you stole from Harun Yahya.

Don't be angry with me because your fraud has now been exposed on 4 separate occasions.

You just lie about your fraudulent cutting and pasting.

I know nothing about your boss, 'Harun Yahya'.....but my posts are correct and you've never 'proven' otherwise.

Your fraudulent cut and paste nonsense has been consistently proven as fraud.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of course, there is no connection between Darwin's theory and atheism.

Your years of study at Harun Yahya have made you only more pompous and just a bit less interesting than the pedestrian bible thumper.

"Fundamentalist! Zealot! Bible thumper!"

You DO realize this is literally all you've said this entire thread so far, right?

You should have realized that many effective counter arguments have been offered to the dishonest cutting and pasting that PC spams the board with.

Like her, you're unable to offer any relevant rebuttal to the established science.

Sweetpea, for me to "realize" that, it would have to be true. I reiterate, you have offered nothing except, "Fundamentalist! Zealot! Bible thumper!"

What I can or can't say about the "established science" is irrelevant in any conversation involving you, because you're not talking about science. You're hurling epithets and buzzwords to drown everyone out. The only "rebuttal" that requires from me is to point it out.

We're done until you have a post that does NOT involve a single word about your pathological hatred of religion and religious people. This isn't your group therapy session, and no one here cares that your youth pastor diddled you. Get over it and get back on topic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Evolutionary theory is widely supported among the relevant science community in spite of the attempts by religious zealots to undermine it.

Gotta love "I was told that EVERYONE KNOWS evolution is right, so I don't have to think any further!" It's certainly hard to argue with . . . if only because I'm usually laughing too hard.

Gotta' love whiners and complainers who loathe science, but are unable to offer a single bit of verifiable evidence to refute what has been offered.

Your religiophobia isn't "science", ****, and mocking it isn't "loathing science".

Dance some more for me, Fool, and jingle the bells on your pointed hat a little harder.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start (examining evolution), and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science---or of any honest intellectual inquiry.

Stephen Jay Gould, Bully for Brontosaurus, 1990, quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief, Famous People with the Courage to Doubt, by James A. Haught, Prometheus Books, 1996

In other words, "I don't have to refute anything you say. I just have to yell, 'fundamentalist!' and hope everyone believes you're discredited."

Here's a thought. Instead of blithering to us about how someone you most likely couldn't tell us about if you had to said that we "know" the answer ahead of time, why don't you try telling us why said answer, whenever it was known, is WRONG? Can you do that?

(I love watching leftists try to talk science. It's like watching my dog try to walk on his hind legs, except he's cuter.)

In other words, your feelings are hurt when someone challenges your religious beliefs.

Just how many times DID your youth pastor diddle you, anyway? And why are you working it out here? Doesn't Obamacare cover mental health treatment?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, "Darwinism", (and what you really mean is Darwin's Theory of Evolution), has withstood the rigors of the scientific method and peer review. So yes, it's provable and not in question among the relevant scientific community.

If you know otherwise, you may wish to email your work to the journal Nature for example.

If you are so certain that you have the data refuting "Darwinism", put you work before peer review and let's see how you do.

This, consistent with so very many of your blind posts, it total nonsense.

Had you spent time in elementary school and college, you might have learned about science.

Ahh, the ever-popular standby: "You don't agree with me. You obviously didn't go to school, or you would know how right I am."

Keep on dancing, Fool, and we'll keep right on laughing. You're probably used to that, right?

 

[Hollie]

In other words, "I don't have to refute anything you say. I just have to yell, 'fundamentalist!' and hope everyone believes you're discredited."

Here's a thought. Instead of blithering to us about how someone you most likely couldn't tell us about if you had to said that we "know" the answer ahead of time, why don't you try telling us why said answer, whenever it was known, is WRONG? Can you do that?

(I love watching leftists try to talk science. It's like watching my dog try to walk on his hind legs, except he's cuter.)

In other words, your feelings are hurt when someone challenges your religious beliefs.

Just how many times DID your youth pastor diddle you, anyway? And why are you working it out here? Doesn't Obamacare cover mental health treatment?

It's better you snipe with juvenile attempts at insult. You're not at all prepared to address any of the salient points.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In other words, your feelings are hurt when someone challenges your religious beliefs.

Just how many times DID your youth pastor diddle you, anyway? And why are you working it out here? Doesn't Obamacare cover mental health treatment?

It's better you snipe with juvenile attempts at insult. You're not at all prepared to address any of the salient points.

Wow.....you really got your head handed to you, huh?

But....no big deal, as there is nothing in your head.



I almost felt sorry for ya'....


That was 'almost.'

 

[Hollie]

Just how many times DID your youth pastor diddle you, anyway? And why are you working it out here? Doesn't Obamacare cover mental health treatment?

It's better you snipe with juvenile attempts at insult. You're not at all prepared to address any of the salient points.

Wow.....you really got your head handed to you, huh?

But....no big deal, as there is nothing in your head.



I almost felt sorry for ya'....


That was 'almost.'

Did you steal that from the fundamentalist site "genesis park" where much of your plagiarized cutting and pasting comes from?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's better you snipe with juvenile attempts at insult. You're not at all prepared to address any of the salient points.

Wow.....you really got your head handed to you, huh?

But....no big deal, as there is nothing in your head.



I almost felt sorry for ya'....


That was 'almost.'

Did you steal that from the fundamentalist site "genesis park" where much of your plagiarized cutting and pasting comes from?

I'm thinkin' of constructing another OP that destroys Darwinism......

.....you down wit' dat?