Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #685760 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-16 10:44 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-05-16 14:14 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 149 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-16 10:44 -0400
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 10:47 -0700
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-16 18:46 +0000
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 12:17 -0700
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-16 20:41 +0000
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 13:47 -0700
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 15:57 -0700
An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-18 14:15 -0400
Re: An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-18 19:32 +0000
Re: An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-18 20:16 -0400
Re: An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. OT de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-19 10:25 +1000
Re: An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. Dinsdale <yup@ayup.yup> - 2018-05-18 22:09 -0400
Re: An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 19:16 -0700
Re: An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-19 12:02 -0400
Re: An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. Dinsdale <yup@ayup.yup> - 2018-05-19 12:09 -0400
Re: An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com> - 2018-05-31 19:44 +0000
Re: An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 17:28 -0400
Re: An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-19 03:37 +0000
Re: An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 20:42 -0700
Re: An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-19 12:07 -0400
Re: An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-19 12:35 -0400
Re: An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-19 12:40 -0400
Re: An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-19 22:22 +0000
Re: An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-19 21:34 -0400
Re: An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-20 03:15 +0000
Re: An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-20 12:18 -0400
Re: An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-20 12:38 -0400
Re: An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com> - 2018-05-31 19:42 +0000
Re: An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 17:26 -0400
Re: An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-06-02 11:27 -0400
Re: An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 13:45 -0400
Re: An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-06-04 09:26 -0400
Re: An Actual Ph.D. Ecologist scientist spanks all climate fraudsters. onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2018-06-04 15:05 +0100
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 16:42 -0400
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-17 00:30 +0000
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 17:34 -0700
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-05-17 05:07 +0000
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-17 19:48 +0000
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 17:47 -0700
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 22:44 -0400
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-05-17 12:34 -0400
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 10:01 -0700
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2018-05-17 12:10 -0500
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-05-17 13:28 -0400
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-05-24 09:47 -0700
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-17 19:49 +0000
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-05-20 10:52 -0400
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-20 12:23 -0400
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-20 12:26 -0400
"Sex at Dawn" by Chris Ryan. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-20 10:01 -0700
Re: "Sex at Dawn" by Chris Ryan. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-20 23:38 -0400
Re: "Sex at Dawn" by Chris Ryan. Dinsdale <yup@ayup.yup> - 2018-05-21 00:11 -0400
Re: "Sex at Dawn" by Chris Ryan. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-21 04:33 +0000
Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-20 23:33 -0700
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-05-21 07:22 +0000
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-21 12:10 -0400
Nature herself punishes perverts. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-21 09:33 -0700
Re: Nature herself punishes perverts. Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-05-21 18:16 +0000
Re: Nature herself punishes perverts. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-21 19:03 +0000
Re: Nature herself punishes perverts. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 13:04 -0700
Re: Nature herself punishes perverts. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-21 21:29 +0000
Re: Nature herself punishes perverts. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 15:47 -0700
Re: Nature herself punishes perverts. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-05-21 19:14 -0400
Re: Nature herself punishes perverts. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 16:16 -0700
Re: Nature herself punishes perverts. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-21 20:19 -0400
Re: Nature herself punishes perverts. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-21 16:11 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-21 09:08 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-21 09:31 -0700
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-21 12:37 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-21 19:05 +0000
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 13:05 -0700
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-21 16:24 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-05-24 11:01 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-21 16:15 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-21 21:30 +0000
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-05-24 11:01 -0400
Gregory Hall condems himself. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-24 10:14 -0700
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-24 13:21 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-24 18:31 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-05-24 22:39 +0000
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-05-24 16:01 -0700
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-24 20:50 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-05-24 18:07 -0700
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-25 11:51 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-24 20:37 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-25 04:47 +0000
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-25 07:42 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-25 13:49 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-25 10:40 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Dinsdale <yup@ayup.yup> - 2018-05-25 11:08 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-25 17:45 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-25 13:53 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-05-25 16:12 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-25 18:11 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-05-26 11:41 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-25 21:49 +0000
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-05-26 11:42 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-26 16:47 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 10:32 -0700
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Leo Sgouros <adravirgo@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 10:55 -0700
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-24 20:25 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-05-25 00:09 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-05-25 00:32 +0000
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-24 21:52 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-25 04:49 +0000
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-25 10:42 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-05-25 05:34 +0000
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-25 00:03 -0600
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-25 10:57 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-25 11:24 -0600
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-25 13:55 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-25 12:41 -0600
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-25 21:50 +0000
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 15:15 -0700
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-25 22:16 +0000
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-25 20:15 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 20:03 -0700
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-26 11:34 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-26 03:41 +0000
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-26 06:39 +0000
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-26 11:14 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-26 19:57 +0000
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-26 16:50 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-26 11:11 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-26 19:58 +0000
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-26 16:54 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-26 22:28 +0000
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-26 22:27 +0000
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-26 23:34 +0000
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-27 01:39 +0000
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-28 01:47 +0000
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-28 02:00 +0000
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com> - 2018-05-31 19:32 +0000
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 05:29 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-25 07:49 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-25 11:58 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-25 13:58 -0400
We can't help them, the damage has been done. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-05-25 11:41 -0700
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-21 12:07 -0400
Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-05-24 09:49 -0700
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-05-24 11:01 -0400
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-24 13:26 -0400
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-20 13:44 -0600
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 13:03 -0700
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-05-24 11:01 -0400
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-24 13:27 -0400
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-05-25 16:12 -0400
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 15:26 -0700
Re: John Oliver is the best climate change reporter on television benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 14:14 -0400
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-26 11:14 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. |
| Message-ID | <yReOC.244783$1e7.149569@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #687155 |
On 5/26/2018 2:39 AM, Nadegda wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Fri, 25 May 2018 23:56:42 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: > >> On Sat, 26 May 2018 03:41:12 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:26:34 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 22:16:39 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>> melt! >>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:01:53 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 21:50:59 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>>>> melt! >>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 12:41:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 11:55 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 1:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The point behind my question is whether it's evolution of >>>>>>>>>> species, >>>>>>>>>> or merely adaptation within a species, that has been observed in >>>>>>>>>> the lab. No one denies that species can adapt. The question is >>>>>>>>>> whether the former, the actual evolution of one species into a >>>>>>>>>> separate and distinct species, has ever been observed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And the answer is "yes": >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/lab-experiment-speciation/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "A groundbreaking lab experiment proves that speciation, in which >>>>>>>>> one species splits into two distinct ones, is most definitely a >>>>>>>>> real thing." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It looks more like someone is playing fast and loose with the >>>>>>>> definition of a new species. That wouldn't be surprising. >>>>>>>> Biologists don't even have a universally accepted definition of >>>>>>>> "species". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's funny, because to me it looks more like some butthurt >>>>>>> creationist kook is playing fast and loose with the questionable >>>>>>> debating tactic of goalpost-moving and no-true-Scotsmanning. >>>>>> >>>>>> The fact is you really don't know if we were created or climbed out >>>>>> of the muck. >>>>> >>>>> Actually, I do. >>>> >>>> Then state what it is and show proof. >>> >>> #include <std_evolution_textbook.h> >> >> So you can't prove it, but we knew that. > > The proof was incorporated into the previous document by reference. > Give it up. Nads is just a lib Fundie and all she knows how to do when asked for "proof" is thump her atheist "bible".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-26 19:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. |
| Message-ID | <pece81$v0b$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #687155 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Sat, 26 May 2018 06:04:31 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: > On Sat, 26 May 2018 03:52:58 -0700, Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by >>Checkmate! In article <bfdigd1uhjmhvelhuen9bfkn4toqftileh@4ax.com>, >>fnvw@invalid.invalid says... >> >> >> >>> On Sat, 26 May 2018 06:39:55 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> >Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>> >melt! >>> >On Fri, 25 May 2018 23:56:42 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>> > >>> >> On Sat, 26 May 2018 03:41:12 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>> >> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>> >>>melt! >>> >>>On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:26:34 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 22:16:39 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>> >>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>> >>>>>snowflakes, >>> >>>>>melt! >>> >>>>>On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:01:53 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 21:50:59 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>> >>>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>> >>>>>>>snowflakes, >>> >>>>>>>melt! >>> >>>>>>>On Fri, 25 May 2018 12:41:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote: >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 11:55 AM, kensi wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 1:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> The point behind my question is whether it's evolution of >>> >>>>>>>>>> species, >>> >>>>>>>>>> or merely adaptation within a species, that has been >>> >>>>>>>>>> observed in the lab. No one denies that species can >>> >>>>>>>>>> adapt. The question is whether the former, the actual >>> >>>>>>>>>> evolution of one species into a separate and distinct >>> >>>>>>>>>> species, has ever been observed. >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> And the answer is "yes": >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/lab-experiment- speciation/ >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> "A groundbreaking lab experiment proves that speciation, in >>> >>>>>>>>> which one species splits into two distinct ones, is most >>> >>>>>>>>> definitely a real thing." >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> It looks more like someone is playing fast and loose with the >>> >>>>>>>> definition of a new species. That wouldn't be surprising. >>> >>>>>>>> Biologists don't even have a universally accepted definition >>> >>>>>>>> of "species". >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>That's funny, because to me it looks more like some butthurt >>> >>>>>>>creationist kook is playing fast and loose with the >>> >>>>>>>questionable debating tactic of goalpost-moving and >>> >>>>>>>no-true-Scotsmanning. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> The fact is you really don't know if we were created or climbed >>> >>>>>> out of the muck. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>Actually, I do. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Then state what it is and show proof. >>> >>> >>> >>>#include <std_evolution_textbook.h> >>> >> >>> >> So you can't prove it, but we knew that. >>> > >>> >The proof was incorporated into the previous document by reference. >>> >>> >>> Just admit you act all smart, yet you have no proof. >> >>Are you winning, for fuck's sake? > > I think so, I woke up early as well as you. Who wins anything at this > hour. The creationists are losing, for fuck's sake. -- FNVWe Nadegda Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-26 16:50 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. |
| Message-ID | <zMjOC.210430$yc1.202062@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #687210 |
On 5/26/2018 3:57 PM, Nadegda wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Sat, 26 May 2018 06:04:31 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: > >> On Sat, 26 May 2018 03:52:58 -0700, Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by >>> Checkmate! In article <bfdigd1uhjmhvelhuen9bfkn4toqftileh@4ax.com>, >>> fnvw@invalid.invalid says... >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Sat, 26 May 2018 06:39:55 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>> melt! >>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 23:56:42 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2018 03:41:12 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>>>> melt! >>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:26:34 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 22:16:39 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>>>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>> snowflakes, >>>>>>>>> melt! >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:01:53 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 21:50:59 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>>>>>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, >>>>>>>>>>> melt! >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 12:41:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 11:55 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 1:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point behind my question is whether it's evolution of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> species, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or merely adaptation within a species, that has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed in the lab. No one denies that species can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> adapt. The question is whether the former, the actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution of one species into a separate and distinct >>>>>>>>>>>>>> species, has ever been observed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And the answer is "yes": >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/lab-experiment- > speciation/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "A groundbreaking lab experiment proves that speciation, in >>>>>>>>>>>>> which one species splits into two distinct ones, is most >>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely a real thing." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It looks more like someone is playing fast and loose with the >>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a new species. That wouldn't be surprising. >>>>>>>>>>>> Biologists don't even have a universally accepted definition >>>>>>>>>>>> of "species". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That's funny, because to me it looks more like some butthurt >>>>>>>>>>> creationist kook is playing fast and loose with the >>>>>>>>>>> questionable debating tactic of goalpost-moving and >>>>>>>>>>> no-true-Scotsmanning. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The fact is you really don't know if we were created or climbed >>>>>>>>>> out of the muck. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Actually, I do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then state what it is and show proof. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> #include <std_evolution_textbook.h> >>>>>> >>>>>> So you can't prove it, but we knew that. >>>>> >>>>> The proof was incorporated into the previous document by reference. >>>> >>>> >>>> Just admit you act all smart, yet you have no proof. >>> >>> Are you winning, for fuck's sake? >> >> I think so, I woke up early as well as you. Who wins anything at this >> hour. > > The creationists are losing, for fuck's sake. > So funny! Lefty atheist libs VS creationist bible thumpers! No intelligence and certainly no science in sight! Science gets to piss up a rope in this contest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-26 11:11 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. |
| Message-ID | <sOeOC.244781$1e7.31777@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #687148 |
On 5/25/2018 11:41 PM, Nadegda wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:26:34 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: > >> On Fri, 25 May 2018 22:16:39 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:01:53 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 21:50:59 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>> melt! >>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 12:41:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/25/2018 11:55 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 1:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The point behind my question is whether it's evolution of species, >>>>>>>> or merely adaptation within a species, that has been observed in >>>>>>>> the lab. No one denies that species can adapt. The question is >>>>>>>> whether the former, the actual evolution of one species into a >>>>>>>> separate and distinct species, has ever been observed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And the answer is "yes": >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/lab-experiment-speciation/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "A groundbreaking lab experiment proves that speciation, in which >>>>>>> one species splits into two distinct ones, is most definitely a >>>>>>> real thing." >>>>>> >>>>>> It looks more like someone is playing fast and loose with the >>>>>> definition of a new species. That wouldn't be surprising. >>>>>> Biologists don't even have a universally accepted definition of >>>>>> "species". >>>>> >>>>> That's funny, because to me it looks more like some butthurt >>>>> creationist kook is playing fast and loose with the questionable >>>>> debating tactic of goalpost-moving and no-true-Scotsmanning. >>>> >>>> The fact is you really don't know if we were created or climbed out of >>>> the muck. >>> >>> Actually, I do. >> >> Then state what it is and show proof. > > #include <std_evolution_textbook.h> > He said, "proof" not "propaganda" Nads.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-26 19:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. |
| Message-ID | <pece9q$v0b$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #687170 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Sat, 26 May 2018 11:11:09 -0400, benj wrote: > On 5/25/2018 11:41 PM, Nadegda wrote: >> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >> melt! >> On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:26:34 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 22:16:39 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>> melt! >>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:01:53 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 21:50:59 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>>> melt! >>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 12:41:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 11:55 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 1:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The point behind my question is whether it's evolution of >>>>>>>>> species, >>>>>>>>> or merely adaptation within a species, that has been observed in >>>>>>>>> the lab. No one denies that species can adapt. The question is >>>>>>>>> whether the former, the actual evolution of one species into a >>>>>>>>> separate and distinct species, has ever been observed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And the answer is "yes": >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/lab-experiment-speciation/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "A groundbreaking lab experiment proves that speciation, in which >>>>>>>> one species splits into two distinct ones, is most definitely a >>>>>>>> real thing." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It looks more like someone is playing fast and loose with the >>>>>>> definition of a new species. That wouldn't be surprising. >>>>>>> Biologists don't even have a universally accepted definition of >>>>>>> "species". >>>>>> >>>>>> That's funny, because to me it looks more like some butthurt >>>>>> creationist kook is playing fast and loose with the questionable >>>>>> debating tactic of goalpost-moving and no-true-Scotsmanning. >>>>> >>>>> The fact is you really don't know if we were created or climbed out >>>>> of the muck. >>>> >>>> Actually, I do. >>> >>> Then state what it is and show proof. >> >> #include <std_evolution_textbook.h> > > He said, "proof" not "propaganda" Nads. The proof is all of the scientific experiments and observations and statistical regressions in the papers that are the basis for, and referenced in, the textbook, kooky. -- FNVWe Nadegda Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-26 16:54 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. |
| Message-ID | <hQjOC.312687$PE5.166893@fx37.iad> |
| In reply to | #687211 |
On 5/26/2018 3:58 PM, Nadegda wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Sat, 26 May 2018 11:11:09 -0400, benj wrote: > >> On 5/25/2018 11:41 PM, Nadegda wrote: >>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>> melt! >>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:26:34 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 22:16:39 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>> melt! >>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:01:53 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 21:50:59 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>>>> melt! >>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 12:41:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 11:55 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 1:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The point behind my question is whether it's evolution of >>>>>>>>>> species, >>>>>>>>>> or merely adaptation within a species, that has been observed in >>>>>>>>>> the lab. No one denies that species can adapt. The question is >>>>>>>>>> whether the former, the actual evolution of one species into a >>>>>>>>>> separate and distinct species, has ever been observed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And the answer is "yes": >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/lab-experiment-speciation/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "A groundbreaking lab experiment proves that speciation, in which >>>>>>>>> one species splits into two distinct ones, is most definitely a >>>>>>>>> real thing." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It looks more like someone is playing fast and loose with the >>>>>>>> definition of a new species. That wouldn't be surprising. >>>>>>>> Biologists don't even have a universally accepted definition of >>>>>>>> "species". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's funny, because to me it looks more like some butthurt >>>>>>> creationist kook is playing fast and loose with the questionable >>>>>>> debating tactic of goalpost-moving and no-true-Scotsmanning. >>>>>> >>>>>> The fact is you really don't know if we were created or climbed out >>>>>> of the muck. >>>>> >>>>> Actually, I do. >>>> >>>> Then state what it is and show proof. >>> >>> #include <std_evolution_textbook.h> >> >> He said, "proof" not "propaganda" Nads. > > The proof is all of the scientific experiments and observations and > statistical regressions in the papers that are the basis for, and > referenced in, the textbook, kooky. > And "all of the scientific experiments and observations and statistical regressions in the papers" that go against the theory that have been left out of "your" textbook makes it propaganda science-ignorant nutjob. Chortle (rule #5)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-26 22:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. |
| Message-ID | <pecn21$v0b$15@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #687231 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Sat, 26 May 2018 16:54:26 -0400, benj wrote: > On 5/26/2018 3:58 PM, Nadegda wrote: >> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >> melt! >> On Sat, 26 May 2018 11:11:09 -0400, benj wrote: >> >>> On 5/25/2018 11:41 PM, Nadegda wrote: >>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>> melt! >>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:26:34 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 22:16:39 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>>> melt! >>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:01:53 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 21:50:59 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>> snowflakes, >>>>>>>> melt! >>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 12:41:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 11:55 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 1:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The point behind my question is whether it's evolution of >>>>>>>>>>> species, >>>>>>>>>>> or merely adaptation within a species, that has been observed >>>>>>>>>>> in the lab. No one denies that species can adapt. The >>>>>>>>>>> question is whether the former, the actual evolution of one >>>>>>>>>>> species into a separate and distinct species, has ever been >>>>>>>>>>> observed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And the answer is "yes": >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/lab-experiment- speciation/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "A groundbreaking lab experiment proves that speciation, in >>>>>>>>>> which one species splits into two distinct ones, is most >>>>>>>>>> definitely a real thing." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It looks more like someone is playing fast and loose with the >>>>>>>>> definition of a new species. That wouldn't be surprising. >>>>>>>>> Biologists don't even have a universally accepted definition of >>>>>>>>> "species". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's funny, because to me it looks more like some butthurt >>>>>>>> creationist kook is playing fast and loose with the questionable >>>>>>>> debating tactic of goalpost-moving and no-true-Scotsmanning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The fact is you really don't know if we were created or climbed >>>>>>> out of the muck. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, I do. >>>>> >>>>> Then state what it is and show proof. >>>> >>>> #include <std_evolution_textbook.h> >>> >>> He said, "proof" not "propaganda" Nads. >> >> The proof is all of the scientific experiments and observations and >> statistical regressions in the papers that are the basis for, and >> referenced in, the textbook, kooky. > > And "all of the scientific experiments and observations and statistical > regressions in the papers" that go against the theory that have been > left out of "your" textbook makes it propaganda science-ignorant nutjob. How can the empty set "make it" anything, creationist? -- FNVWe Nadegda Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-26 22:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. |
| Message-ID | <pecn0n$v0b$14@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #687211 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Sat, 26 May 2018 14:07:05 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: > On Sat, 26 May 2018 19:58:50 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda > <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > >>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >>On Sat, 26 May 2018 11:11:09 -0400, benj wrote: >> >>> On 5/25/2018 11:41 PM, Nadegda wrote: >>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>> melt! >>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:26:34 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 22:16:39 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>>> melt! >>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:01:53 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 21:50:59 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>> snowflakes, >>>>>>>> melt! >>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 12:41:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 11:55 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 1:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The point behind my question is whether it's evolution of >>>>>>>>>>> species, >>>>>>>>>>> or merely adaptation within a species, that has been observed >>>>>>>>>>> in the lab. No one denies that species can adapt. The >>>>>>>>>>> question is whether the former, the actual evolution of one >>>>>>>>>>> species into a separate and distinct species, has ever been >>>>>>>>>>> observed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And the answer is "yes": >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/lab-experiment- speciation/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "A groundbreaking lab experiment proves that speciation, in >>>>>>>>>> which one species splits into two distinct ones, is most >>>>>>>>>> definitely a real thing." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It looks more like someone is playing fast and loose with the >>>>>>>>> definition of a new species. That wouldn't be surprising. >>>>>>>>> Biologists don't even have a universally accepted definition of >>>>>>>>> "species". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's funny, because to me it looks more like some butthurt >>>>>>>> creationist kook is playing fast and loose with the questionable >>>>>>>> debating tactic of goalpost-moving and no-true-Scotsmanning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The fact is you really don't know if we were created or climbed >>>>>>> out of the muck. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, I do. >>>>> >>>>> Then state what it is and show proof. >>>> >>>> #include <std_evolution_textbook.h> >>> >>> He said, "proof" not "propaganda" Nads. >> >>The proof is all of the scientific experiments and observations and >>statistical regressions in the papers that are the basis for, and >>referenced in, the textbook, kooky. > > You said you had proof yet you fail to produce it. There is a marvellous proof which this Usenet post is too small to contain, hence I incorporated it by reference. What did you expect me to do instead, paste in hundreds of megabytes of scientific papers published over a period exceeding a century, all so that you could just snip and ignore it all and toss off some phrase of dismissal such as "fake news" and continue to believe your fairy-tales anyway? I have met the burden of proof. You refuse to look at it. You have effectively conceded the argument by doing so. I declare victory. End of thread. -- FNVWe Nadegda Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-26 23:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. |
| Message-ID | <pecqut$v0b$17@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #687244 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Sat, 26 May 2018 16:42:26 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: > On Sat, 26 May 2018 22:27:35 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda > <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > >>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >>On Sat, 26 May 2018 14:07:05 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 26 May 2018 19:58:50 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>melt! >>>>On Sat, 26 May 2018 11:11:09 -0400, benj wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 5/25/2018 11:41 PM, Nadegda wrote: >>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>>> melt! >>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:26:34 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 22:16:39 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>> snowflakes, >>>>>>>> melt! >>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:01:53 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 21:50:59 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>>>>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, >>>>>>>>>> melt! >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 12:41:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 11:55 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 1:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The point behind my question is whether it's evolution of >>>>>>>>>>>>> species, >>>>>>>>>>>>> or merely adaptation within a species, that has been >>>>>>>>>>>>> observed in the lab. No one denies that species can adapt. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The question is whether the former, the actual evolution of >>>>>>>>>>>>> one species into a separate and distinct species, has ever >>>>>>>>>>>>> been observed. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And the answer is "yes": >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/lab-experiment- >>speciation/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "A groundbreaking lab experiment proves that speciation, in >>>>>>>>>>>> which one species splits into two distinct ones, is most >>>>>>>>>>>> definitely a real thing." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It looks more like someone is playing fast and loose with the >>>>>>>>>>> definition of a new species. That wouldn't be surprising. >>>>>>>>>>> Biologists don't even have a universally accepted definition >>>>>>>>>>> of "species". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's funny, because to me it looks more like some butthurt >>>>>>>>>> creationist kook is playing fast and loose with the >>>>>>>>>> questionable debating tactic of goalpost-moving and >>>>>>>>>> no-true-Scotsmanning. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The fact is you really don't know if we were created or climbed >>>>>>>>> out of the muck. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Actually, I do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then state what it is and show proof. >>>>>> >>>>>> #include <std_evolution_textbook.h> >>>>> >>>>> He said, "proof" not "propaganda" Nads. >>>> >>>>The proof is all of the scientific experiments and observations and >>>>statistical regressions in the papers that are the basis for, and >>>>referenced in, the textbook, kooky. >>> >>> You said you had proof yet you fail to produce it. >> >>There is a marvellous proof which this Usenet post is too small to >>contain, hence I incorporated it by reference. What did you expect me to >>do instead, paste in hundreds of megabytes of scientific papers >>published over a period exceeding a century, all so that you could just >>snip and ignore it all and toss off some phrase of dismissal such as >>"fake news" and continue to believe your fairy-tales anyway? >> >>I have met the burden of proof. You refuse to look at it. You have >>effectively conceded the argument by doing so. I declare victory. End of >>thread. > > So what you are saying is that you hope evolution is right but you > really don't know. No, that is NOT what I'm saying. Your reading comprehension skills are shit. -- FNVWe Nadegda Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-27 01:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. |
| Message-ID | <ped292$v0b$22@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #687260 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Sat, 26 May 2018 18:18:16 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: > On Sat, 26 May 2018 23:34:53 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda > <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > >>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >>On Sat, 26 May 2018 16:42:26 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 26 May 2018 22:27:35 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>melt! >>>>On Sat, 26 May 2018 14:07:05 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2018 19:58:50 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>>>melt! >>>>>>On Sat, 26 May 2018 11:11:09 -0400, benj wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 11:41 PM, Nadegda wrote: >>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>> snowflakes, >>>>>>>> melt! >>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:26:34 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 22:16:39 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>>>>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, >>>>>>>>>> melt! >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:01:53 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 21:50:59 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>>>>>>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, >>>>>>>>>>>> melt! >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 12:41:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 11:55 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 1:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point behind my question is whether it's evolution of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or merely adaptation within a species, that has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed in the lab. No one denies that species can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adapt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question is whether the former, the actual evolution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of one species into a separate and distinct species, has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever been observed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the answer is "yes": >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/lab-experiment- >>>>speciation/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A groundbreaking lab experiment proves that speciation, in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which one species splits into two distinct ones, is most >>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely a real thing." >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks more like someone is playing fast and loose with >>>>>>>>>>>>> the definition of a new species. That wouldn't be >>>>>>>>>>>>> surprising. Biologists don't even have a universally >>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted definition of "species". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's funny, because to me it looks more like some butthurt >>>>>>>>>>>> creationist kook is playing fast and loose with the >>>>>>>>>>>> questionable debating tactic of goalpost-moving and >>>>>>>>>>>> no-true-Scotsmanning. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The fact is you really don't know if we were created or >>>>>>>>>>> climbed out of the muck. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Actually, I do. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then state what it is and show proof. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> #include <std_evolution_textbook.h> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He said, "proof" not "propaganda" Nads. >>>>>> >>>>>>The proof is all of the scientific experiments and observations and >>>>>>statistical regressions in the papers that are the basis for, and >>>>>>referenced in, the textbook, kooky. >>>>> >>>>> You said you had proof yet you fail to produce it. >>>> >>>>There is a marvellous proof which this Usenet post is too small to >>>>contain, hence I incorporated it by reference. What did you expect me >>>>to do instead, paste in hundreds of megabytes of scientific papers >>>>published over a period exceeding a century, all so that you could >>>>just snip and ignore it all and toss off some phrase of dismissal such >>>>as "fake news" and continue to believe your fairy-tales anyway? >>>> >>>>I have met the burden of proof. You refuse to look at it. You have >>>>effectively conceded the argument by doing so. I declare victory. End >>>>of thread. >>> >>> So what you are saying is that you hope evolution is right but you >>> really don't know. >> >>No, that is NOT what I'm saying. Your reading comprehension skills are >>shit. > > So you don't have proof, you choose to believe what someone else has > said. So you really don't know do you? See above. And get some remedial reading comprehension lessons. Your local elementary school probably can provide this service. -- FNVWe Nadegda Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 01:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. |
| Message-ID | <pefn2r$ooj$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #687276 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Sun, 27 May 2018 07:07:49 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: > On Sun, 27 May 2018 01:39:46 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda > <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > >>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >>On Sat, 26 May 2018 18:18:16 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 26 May 2018 23:34:53 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>melt! >>>>On Sat, 26 May 2018 16:42:26 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2018 22:27:35 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>>>melt! >>>>>>On Sat, 26 May 2018 14:07:05 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2018 19:58:50 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>>>>>melt! >>>>>>>>On Sat, 26 May 2018 11:11:09 -0400, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 11:41 PM, Nadegda wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, >>>>>>>>>> melt! >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:26:34 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 22:16:39 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>>>>>>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, >>>>>>>>>>>> melt! >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:01:53 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 21:50:59 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>>>>>>>>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> melt! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 12:41:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 11:55 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 1:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point behind my question is whether it's evolution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of species, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or merely adaptation within a species, that has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed in the lab. No one denies that species can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adapt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question is whether the former, the actual evolution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of one species into a separate and distinct species, has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever been observed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the answer is "yes": >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/lab-experiment- >>>>>>speciation/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A groundbreaking lab experiment proves that speciation, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in which one species splits into two distinct ones, is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most definitely a real thing." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks more like someone is playing fast and loose with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the definition of a new species. That wouldn't be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surprising. Biologists don't even have a universally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted definition of "species". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's funny, because to me it looks more like some >>>>>>>>>>>>>> butthurt creationist kook is playing fast and loose with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the questionable debating tactic of goalpost-moving and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-true-Scotsmanning. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact is you really don't know if we were created or >>>>>>>>>>>>> climbed out of the muck. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I do. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Then state what it is and show proof. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> #include <std_evolution_textbook.h> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> He said, "proof" not "propaganda" Nads. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The proof is all of the scientific experiments and observations >>>>>>>>and statistical regressions in the papers that are the basis for, >>>>>>>>and referenced in, the textbook, kooky. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You said you had proof yet you fail to produce it. >>>>>> >>>>>>There is a marvellous proof which this Usenet post is too small to >>>>>>contain, hence I incorporated it by reference. What did you expect >>>>>>me to do instead, paste in hundreds of megabytes of scientific >>>>>>papers published over a period exceeding a century, all so that you >>>>>>could just snip and ignore it all and toss off some phrase of >>>>>>dismissal such as "fake news" and continue to believe your >>>>>>fairy-tales anyway? >>>>>> >>>>>>I have met the burden of proof. You refuse to look at it. You have >>>>>>effectively conceded the argument by doing so. I declare victory. >>>>>>End of thread. >>>>> >>>>> So what you are saying is that you hope evolution is right but you >>>>> really don't know. >>>> >>>>No, that is NOT what I'm saying. Your reading comprehension skills are >>>>shit. >>> >>> So you don't have proof, you choose to believe what someone else has >>> said. So you really don't know do you? >> >>See above. And get some remedial reading comprehension lessons. Your >>local elementary school probably can provide this service. > > Is that your final answer? 150 years of settled science. -- FNVWe Nadegda Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-28 02:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. |
| Message-ID | <pefnsh$ooj$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #687431 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Sun, 27 May 2018 19:51:27 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: > On Mon, 28 May 2018 01:47:08 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda > <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > >>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >>On Sun, 27 May 2018 07:07:49 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 27 May 2018 01:39:46 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>melt! >>>>On Sat, 26 May 2018 18:18:16 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2018 23:34:53 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>>>melt! >>>>>>On Sat, 26 May 2018 16:42:26 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2018 22:27:35 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>>>>>melt! >>>>>>>>On Sat, 26 May 2018 14:07:05 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2018 19:58:50 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>>>>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>>>snowflakes, >>>>>>>>>>melt! >>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 26 May 2018 11:11:09 -0400, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 11:41 PM, Nadegda wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, >>>>>>>>>>>> melt! >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:26:34 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 22:16:39 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>>>>>>>>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> melt! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:01:53 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 21:50:59 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> melt! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 12:41:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 11:55 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2018 1:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point behind my question is whether it's evolution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of species, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or merely adaptation within a species, that has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed in the lab. No one denies that species can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adapt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question is whether the former, the actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution of one species into a separate and distinct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species, has ever been observed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the answer is "yes": >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/lab-experiment- >>>>>>>>speciation/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A groundbreaking lab experiment proves that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speciation, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in which one species splits into two distinct ones, is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most definitely a real thing." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks more like someone is playing fast and loose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the definition of a new species. That wouldn't be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surprising. Biologists don't even have a universally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted definition of "species". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's funny, because to me it looks more like some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> butthurt creationist kook is playing fast and loose with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the questionable debating tactic of goalpost-moving and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-true-Scotsmanning. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact is you really don't know if we were created or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climbed out of the muck. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I do. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Then state what it is and show proof. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> #include <std_evolution_textbook.h> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> He said, "proof" not "propaganda" Nads. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>The proof is all of the scientific experiments and observations >>>>>>>>>>and statistical regressions in the papers that are the basis >>>>>>>>>>for, and referenced in, the textbook, kooky. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You said you had proof yet you fail to produce it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>There is a marvellous proof which this Usenet post is too small to >>>>>>>>contain, hence I incorporated it by reference. What did you expect >>>>>>>>me to do instead, paste in hundreds of megabytes of scientific >>>>>>>>papers published over a period exceeding a century, all so that >>>>>>>>you could just snip and ignore it all and toss off some phrase of >>>>>>>>dismissal such as "fake news" and continue to believe your >>>>>>>>fairy-tales anyway? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I have met the burden of proof. You refuse to look at it. You have >>>>>>>>effectively conceded the argument by doing so. I declare victory. >>>>>>>>End of thread. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So what you are saying is that you hope evolution is right but you >>>>>>> really don't know. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, that is NOT what I'm saying. Your reading comprehension skills >>>>>>are shit. >>>>> >>>>> So you don't have proof, you choose to believe what someone else has >>>>> said. So you really don't know do you? >>>> >>>>See above. And get some remedial reading comprehension lessons. Your >>>>local elementary school probably can provide this service. >>> >>> Is that your final answer? >> >>150 years of settled science. > > So http://bigthink.com/think-tank/10-examples-of-settled-science-that-are- controversial ---------- 1. Evolution Unites All of Biology Evolution by natural selection is such a rock solid concept, that it is one of the ten greatest ideas in all of science. Opposition to the idea is particularly strong in the United States, which ranks near the bottom among westernized countries in terms of acceptance. ---------- http://www.realclearscience.com/lists/ settled_science_that_is_controversial/evolution_unites_all_of_biology.html? state=stop (You might also foam about item #9.) -- FNVWe Nadegda Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 19:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. |
| Message-ID | <XnsA8F39E0568923greyghost471bazinga@85.214.115.223> |
| In reply to | #687109 |
Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote in news:pea207$l9u$29@dont-email.me: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, > melt! On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:01:53 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: > >> On Fri, 25 May 2018 21:50:59 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >> >>>Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>melt! On Fri, 25 May 2018 12:41:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/25/2018 11:55 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>> On 5/25/2018 1:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The point behind my question is whether it's evolution of >>>>>> species, or merely adaptation within a species, that has been >>>>>> observed in the lab. No one denies that species can adapt. >>>>>> The question is whether the former, the actual evolution of one >>>>>> species into a separate and distinct species, has ever been >>>>>> observed. >>>>> >>>>> And the answer is "yes": >>>>> >>>>> https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/lab-experiment-speciation/ >>>>> >>>>> "A groundbreaking lab experiment proves that speciation, in which >>>>> one species splits into two distinct ones, is most definitely a >>>>> real thing." >>>> >>>> It looks more like someone is playing fast and loose with the >>>> definition of a new species. That wouldn't be surprising. >>>> Biologists don't even have a universally accepted definition of >>>> "species". >>> >>>That's funny, because to me it looks more like some butthurt >>>creationist kook is playing fast and loose with the questionable >>>debating tactic of goalpost-moving and no-true-Scotsmanning. >> >> The fact is you really don't know if we were created or climbed out >> of the muck. > > Actually, I do. > No you arrogant cunt, you don't. You were not there to observe. And evolution has holes big enough to drive a herd of mammoths through.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 05:29 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. |
| Message-ID | <per3lf$21o$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #687994 |
On 5/31/2018 3:32 PM, Avenging Angel wrote: > Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote in > news:pea207$l9u$29@dont-email.me: > >> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >> melt! On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:01:53 -0600, Skeeter DoW #420 wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 21:50:59 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda >>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>> melt! On Fri, 25 May 2018 12:41:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 5/25/2018 11:55 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>> On 5/25/2018 1:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The point behind my question is whether it's evolution of >>>>>>> species, or merely adaptation within a species, that has been >>>>>>> observed in the lab. No one denies that species can adapt. >>>>>>> The question is whether the former, the actual evolution of one >>>>>>> species into a separate and distinct species, has ever been >>>>>>> observed. >>>>>> >>>>>> And the answer is "yes": >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/lab-experiment-speciation/ >>>>>> >>>>>> "A groundbreaking lab experiment proves that speciation, in which >>>>>> one species splits into two distinct ones, is most definitely a >>>>>> real thing." >>>>> >>>>> It looks more like someone is playing fast and loose with the >>>>> definition of a new species. That wouldn't be surprising. >>>>> Biologists don't even have a universally accepted definition of >>>>> "species". >>>> >>>> That's funny, because to me it looks more like some butthurt >>>> creationist kook is playing fast and loose with the questionable >>>> debating tactic of goalpost-moving and no-true-Scotsmanning. >>> >>> The fact is you really don't know if we were created or climbed out >>> of the muck. >> >> Actually, I do. > > No you arrogant cunt, you don't. Yes, she does. So do I. > You were not there to observe. Doesn't matter. Evidence was left at the scene and subsequently analyzed. > And evolution has holes big enough to drive a herd of mammoths through. Oh, really? Name one. -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 07:49 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. |
| Message-ID | <smtfgdpstpbn7tpccp8lqgpf935dt4r1fr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #687010 |
On Fri, 25 May 2018 05:34:37 -0000 (UTC), vallor wrote: >On Thu, 24 May 2018 21:52:55 -0400, benj wrote: > >> On 5/24/2018 8:32 PM, vallor wrote: >>> On Thu, 24 May 2018 11:01:21 -0400, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 21 May 2018 12:37:11 -0400, kensi >>>> <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 5/21/2018 9:08 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [snip massive doses of racism and Islamophobia] >>>>> >>>>>> Despite living on a continent which is almost completely >>>>>> inhospitable to the human race due to its many diseases, infertile >>>>>> lands and harsh climate, Africans >>>>> >>>>> That's a strange way to describe the continent on which humans >>>>> *evolved in the first place*, and whose grasslands we replicate >>>>> wherever we travel, "terraforming" suburbs and city parks into mini >>>>> Kenyas. >>>> >>>> Sadly, evolution is only a theory. >>> >>> No it's not. >>> >>> The _theory_ of evolution is an attempt to scientifically describe the >>> mechanism behind the _observed fact_ of evolution. >>> >>> Man, are you kooky! >> >> There are "facts" of evolution not "fact". Evolution is NOT "fact". >> evolution is just a theory. Your "Fact" of evolution is the religion of >> you liberal atheist fundies. Real science has no place for any idiot >> fundies left or right. > >Scientists observe evolution in the lab all the time. Do you know how >much we've mutated fruit flies? Enough to design a new species to spec? >Read and learn, kooky: > >https://www.nature.com/news/flies-reared-in-the-dark-for-60-years-give-up- >their-genetic-secrets-1.19339 but he says that the variants Fuse’s team identified may have changed in frequency because of random ‘genetic drift’, not natural selection. Maybe someone else needs to read more, but probably not about the dead-end religion of evolution. Do you know the difference between evolution and selective breeding?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 11:58 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. |
| Message-ID | <FoWNC.245068$DS3.66602@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #686981 |
On 5/24/2018 8:32 PM, vallor wrote: > On Thu, 24 May 2018 11:01:21 -0400, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: > >> On Mon, 21 May 2018 12:37:11 -0400, kensi >> <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> On 5/21/2018 9:08 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote: >>> >>> [snip massive doses of racism and Islamophobia] >>> >>>> Despite living on a continent which is almost completely inhospitable >>>> to the human race due to its many diseases, infertile lands and harsh >>>> climate, Africans >>> >>> That's a strange way to describe the continent on which humans *evolved >>> in the first place*, and whose grasslands we replicate wherever we >>> travel, "terraforming" suburbs and city parks into mini Kenyas. >> >> Sadly, evolution is only a theory. > > No it's not. > > The _theory_ of evolution is an attempt to scientifically describe the > mechanism behind the _observed fact_ of evolution. > > Man, are you kooky! > Another lib fundie speaks up for his religion! The "theory of Evolution" is an attempt to extrapolate the observed genetic response of some organisms to environment to "explain" the origin of all living things including humans. This extrapolation has very slim evidence supporting it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 13:58 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. |
| Message-ID | <pe9isf$121p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #687048 |
On 5/25/2018 11:58 AM, benj wrote: > The "theory of Evolution" is an attempt to extrapolate the observed > genetic response of some organisms to environment to "explain" the > origin of all living things including humans. This extrapolation has > very slim evidence supporting it. I wouldn't characterize it as "very slim", but even if we were to concede your claim here, it is still far more evidence than exists to support your alternative, to wit, "a great bearded white d00d in the sky waved his magic wand and conjured it all up out of thin air!" Evolution also makes useful /predictions/, about what we will see and what will happen in various situations (e.g. that bacteria will become resistant to antibiotics). What useful predictions does "bearded white d00d in the sky who can literally make anything at all happen on a whim" make? That "theory" doesn't seem to constrain what-can-happen at all! -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 11:41 -0700 |
| Subject | We can't help them, the damage has been done. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@May.25--11.41am.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #687068 |
In the Garden of Eden story, "God" is the father, the parent; and Adam, his child, had to leave when he discovered sex. Greg and Ben's desire to be "God, the Father" has been their down fall. We can't help them, the damage has been done. "Marriage & Kids" is the domain of the poor, uneducated and unfortunate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 12:07 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. |
| Message-ID | <P8CMC.118481$R51.112196@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #686456 |
On 5/21/2018 2:33 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>> Two days ago, Holly Randall interviewed "Sex at Dawn" author, >>> Chris Ryan; see: YouTube.COM/watch?v=M9_iNW_JOYA >>> 337 views, no comments and 9 likes ( one from me ). >> >> [insult] > > Who breeds more ? poor, African Muslims or rich Japanese ? > "Marriage & Kids" is the domain of the poor, uneducated and unfortunate. > > To woo a girl, one must woo her tribe; > but what if they're BlueEyed sorority sisters ? > > Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. > Perfection is the enemy of the LeastBad; > so hold your nose, and go for it. > But Rolf it's so hard to get to know the "true personality" of a rubber pussy!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-24 09:49 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. |
| Message-ID | <pe6qea$h92$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #686456 |
x-no-archive: yes On 5/20/2018 11:33 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>> Two days ago, Holly Randall interviewed "Sex at Dawn" author, >>> Chris Ryan; see: YouTube.COM/watch?v=M9_iNW_JOYA >>> 337 views, no comments and 9 likes ( one from me ). >> >> [insult] > > Who breeds more ? poor, African Muslims or rich Japanese ? > "Marriage & Kids" is the domain of the poor, uneducated and unfortunate. > > To woo a girl, one must woo her tribe; > but what if they're BlueEyed sorority sisters ? > > Porn and a rubber pussy is the LeastBad option. > Perfection is the enemy of the LeastBad; > so hold your nose, and go for it. lol god I love Usenet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web