Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution makes no sense
John
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 63 (13774)
07-18-2002 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Conspirator
07-18-2002 4:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Conspirator:
It's because evolutionists are so blinded by their own beliefs that they can't see the truth if it hit them in the ass.
I'll post my intense hatred for evolution/evolutionists real soon.

oh spiff.....
please please please single me out for your hatred!!!!!!
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Conspirator, posted 07-18-2002 4:20 PM Conspirator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 07-18-2002 7:29 PM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 63 (13832)
07-19-2002 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Conspirator
07-19-2002 8:09 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Conspirator:
Ok, fine, I won't keep the debates in here personal.. I know very well how to act in a debate and I know that a person shouldn't take it too personal.. I've been at other message boards debating for about 6 months now and I've had the most experience in Creation/Evolution discussions and I think I know the most about the Creation/Evolution discussion than a lot of other people think..And I'm going to last here for way more than a week...
okie dokie
Take a shot at something.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Conspirator, posted 07-19-2002 8:09 AM Conspirator has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 63 (13942)
07-22-2002 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Conspirator
07-22-2002 5:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Conspirator:
Webtv
ewwwww.... icky
[QUOTE][b]It's just that the evolutionists in previous discussions that I've had with them don't deserve my respect because all they do is don't listen to my reasons why I don't like Evolution, try to force their beliefs on me and don't show me any repsect.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
I hope you don't equate rebutting you arguments with not listening to you.
quote:
That's why I didn't show you any respect because I haven't discussed anything with you. Geez..
So we start off guilty? Is this cold war preemptive strike logic? Geez...
quote:
There are no transitional links or intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world.
Everything is a transitional form in that the population it is a part of is changing very very slowly. There are mountains of evidence connecting various critters.
quote:
Natural selection, the driving mechanism for evolution is totally inadequate. It along with mutations is said to have caused organisms to evolve from one basic kind (animals which can reproduce with each other) into another basic kind. This is prohibited genetically since all of the information for the development of an organism has already been coded in the DNA of its parent.
You mentioned 'mutation' then quickly forgot about it. Genes do not replicate with 100% accuracy. There are errors, hence not all the genes match exactly the DNA of the parent organism(s).
quote:
Variation to organisms must remain within the basic kind.
Perhaps you can precisely define 'basic kind.' No one has yet to do so, that I can tell.
quote:
For example, genetically, a wide variety of dogs can come to exist, but a dog can never become anything other than a dog.
Are wolves dogs?
quote:
This could not produce evolution, however, since mutations do not create new genetic potential, they just alter what is already there.
If you alter a gene such that it has a different amino acid sequence than it had, is this not new? It was not there before....
quote:
Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code.
This is simply wrong. Not all mutations are harmful-- most are perhaps, but not all. One mutations for example, allows a bacteria to digest nylon-- not a bad trick when food is scarce.
Besides, even small changes to a gene can result in massive changes to an organism.
quote:
For example, a working wristwatch does not improve, but is harmed when its inside parts are randomly altered.
A wristwatch is a terrible analogy. For one, a wristwatch isn't self-replicating. Even the most simple organism is many times more complicated. Ever notice that a wristwatch isn't ALIVE?
quote:
Socially, it argues that the best and fittest society would be one where its' individuals look out only for themselves and would advance themselves, if possible, at the expense of others. It would even destroy others if possible.
This is called Social Darwinism and it isn't part of the ToE.
quote:
Thus, barbarism is demanded by natural selction with the destruction of the weak and the free domain of the powerful. It demands total annihilation of anything weaker than necessary and the ruling of anyone more powerful than others. People exhibit mercy, pity, and morality, all of which inhibit natural selection.
This is a very simplistic application of natural selection to human society. Look up a field of anthropology called 'cultural ecology' Human society is far more complicated than people killing each other and strangely enough, it all has adaptive value. Think about it. No one would live very long if we were driven solely by the desire to destroy the weak. Ever notice that everyone thinks that everyone else is inferior? So WHY would this trait be selected for? Or, more accurately, why would this be the only trait selected for? Why not some other traits as well, that tone down this violence? Your argument is inconsistent.
quote:
1. The natural selction process could not have the forethought to allow an organism to become worse temporarily in order to ultimately form an eye, for example.
Natural selection has no forethought at all. Eyes function at every level of evolution. At first as a vague light sensor, then as a little bit better sensor and so on. What you posit isn't evolution.
quote:
2. It requires that organisms began as crude, yet an organism could not have survived with basic intricate functions such as respiration or reproduction. These had to exist from the beginning of the organism.
Are viruses alive? No bodies. No brains. No respiration. No digestion.
[QUOTE][b]3. Our bodies depend on systems that run according to intricate order such as from DNA. A system dependant on order cannot be created by disorder. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
All a system needs is power and it will develop order of a sort. Take convection currents in a pot of water on the stove.
quote:
1. Although evolutionists say that organisms are suited for their environment because they evolved into it, being suited for the environment is much better explained by the fact that they were created for the environment rather than that they evolved into it.
How do you figure? Seem like they would be much better designed for the environment if they were created to live in it.
[QUOTE][b]2. The fact that living things have similar patterns and design points to a common designer better than to a common ancestor.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Why? The designer ran out of designs for molars?
quote:
In fact, such variety in the world could not have been produced if we all came from the same ancestor.
Statements are not arguments. Care to elaborate?
quote:
3. If we all come from the same ancestor, we would all be murderers and cannibals by the simple act of killing a cow.
Ok.
quote:
4. While small and undeveloped things do become grown and developed such as a baby to its parent and a seed to it tree, the pattern of growth is circular, not simply crude to the developed as natural selection proposes.
You never get an exact duplicate ('cept for twins) How is this circular? You never ever ever return to the same starting point.
quote:
5. Our needs exceed those of survival. Needs for love and friendship, for example, cannot be exaplined if all that do is for survival.
Sure it can. Humans are social creatures. Outside of society we don't survive well. But as you mentioned earlier, there is a tendency towards selfishness and barbarism. Emotions like love bond us together. Its a balancing act.
quote:
6. Order and interdependence in the world argues for a designer and against chance.
That order an independence is a vicious arms race. It isn't some kind of utopia. Things kill other things-- a lot.
quote:
humans resulted from animals
Humans are animals.
quote:
Life is far too complex to have resulted from any chance happening.
Based on what?
quote:
Even the simplest form of life consists of billions of parts working together and needed for the basic functioning of the organism.
All you need is a tiny little self-replicating molecule to get things started. You do not need billions of parts or whole organisms falling together by chance.
quote:
Life coming from matter would violate the law of biogenesis and the cell principle which state that life must come from life.
These are descriptions of how things now work. They are not binding laws.
quote:
In fact, they base their conclusions on mere speculation and of the flimsiest of "finds." Many discoveries of supposed hominids consist only of a mouth fragment, a leg bone, a hip bone, or a knee joint. On this alone, they have considered it to be a hominid. They even name it, reconstruct what it looked like, and present it to the public as fact.
I spent five years in college studying anthropology/archeology. The process doesn't work like this. There is an enormous amount of measurement, comparison, math, geoscience, etc, etc....
quote:
Some of these finds have turned out to be a pig, donkey, or the result of a hoax. One hoax consisted of someone placing a human skull with an ape's jaw. Evolutionists declared it to be a hominid for fifty years without having done an in depth study of it.
And evolutionists corrected the problem as well.
quote:
Sometimes rocks as simple as those found in any backyard are called tools of hominids and are pictured in books.
And you've analyzed the macro and microscopic wear patterns and the fracture patterns to determine that these are just rocks, not tools?
quote:
Footprints that look iodentical to any person's today are sometimes declared in books and accepted as those of honminids.
Again, there are distictive patterns which can be analyzed if care is taken to do so.
quote:
Nine of the twelve supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all.
So there are extinct hominids. Big deal. There are extinct horses, and extinct birds, and extinct whales.
Ancestor does not mean 'part-human'
quote:
the discovery of extinct apes demonstrated some of the finds to be monkeys/apes.
No one is going to argu this point. But so what?
quote:
Close examination of the skulls and bones have caused experts to determine that none of the other skulls have any human characteristics either.
Wrong. Just wrong. All apes share a lot of charicteristics with humans. Monkeys share a bit fewer characteristics. Lemurs and lorises fewer still. All the way back to this little mouse-like thing with opposable thumbs.
quote:
The bones and skulls found could be any of the perhaps thousands of monkeys and apes that have existed in the past.
A monkey skull is not like every other monkey skull. They all have distinguishing characteristics.
quote:
These bones and skulls have never been found apart from where apes/monkeys live or have lived.
Just as we would expect if we evolved from primate stock.
quote:
The final three hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part ape/monkey at all.
What final three? And stop with the part ape bit.
quote:
The rock strata (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.
There is not a single complete and consistent flood model that can explain the rock strata, much less explain it better than mainstream geology.
quote:
Fossiles require quick and tremendous pressure to be formed.
Where did you hear this? Animals generally require rapid burial to fossilize, and then a tremendous amount of time.
quote:
Without this, a carcass not only could not form a fossil over time, but would be eaten by scavengers or destroyed by bacteria.
A lot of fossils show just this sort of damage. Bacteria don't eat bone.
quote:
The circulating water of a flood (along with gravity) would cause smaller organisms to naturally bury lower and more mobile organisms, with the ability to temporarily avoid the flood, would be buried close to the top for this reason.
But this pattern isn't found in the fossil record.
Besides which, smaller animals would be suspended by the currents for a longer period and would be deposited at the top.
quote:
Such things as fish, which are already low in the sea, would also naturally be buried low.
But fish swim... and so should have the best chance of all to survive, though they would ultimately succumb to the destructionn of thier habitat. Fish ought to be deposited high up.
quote:
A universal flood has been well documented historically as having ovvured.
Not even close.
quote:
Evolutionists have used fossils in rock sediments to say that simpler organisms were at the bottom of the sediment and more complex ones were at the top.
ummm..... the fossils simply are in the rock sediment. How can you argue with this?
quote:
They have ignored the great inconsistencies in the finds for which a flood could account, but not the evolutionary process.
Like for example?
[QUOTE][b]In fact, in some strata, a tree can be seen protruding through several layers which supposedly formed over millions of years. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
Where? Cite something. Roots do not count.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Conspirator, posted 07-22-2002 5:23 PM Conspirator has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 63 (13949)
07-22-2002 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by gene90
07-22-2002 8:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Limnoscelis, Tseajaia
Solenodonsaurus
Hylonomus, Paleothyris
[QUOTE][b]or reptile to birds and mammals are represented[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Reptile to Mammal:
Paleothyris
Protoclepsydrops haplous
Clepsydrops
Archaeothyris
Varanops
Haptodus
Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon
Biarmosuchia
Procynosuchus
Dvinia
Thrinaxodon
Cynognathus
Diademodon
Probelesodon
Probainognathus
Exaeretodon
Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium
Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus
Adelobasileus cromptoni
Sinoconodon
Kuehneotherium
Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon
Peramus
Endotherium
Kielantherium, Aegialodon
Steropodon galmani
Vincelestes neuquenianus
Pariadens kirklandi
Kennalestes, Asioryctes
Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops
(I'm tired of listing, so I'm going to use the Late Cretaceous as a stopping point)
By the way, who said birds are directly descended from reptiles?

oooooo..... all that Latin.....
Anticipating Conspirator's response..... but there ARE NO TRANSITIONALS between the species/fossil's you named!!!!
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by gene90, posted 07-22-2002 8:08 PM gene90 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 63 (14021)
07-23-2002 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Conspirator
07-23-2002 3:36 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Conspirator:
[b]The reason that I didn't show you guys any respect is because I don't know how you people will react in a debate.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Like I said, we start off guilty.
[QUOTE][b]
quote:
Everything is a transitional form in that the population it is a part of is changing very very slowly. There are mountains of evidence connecting various critters.
Could you show me this evidence?[/quote]
[/b]
Well, for starters, this idea is embedded in the ToE. Evolution doesn't propose that creatures jump from one form to another in one huge leap, but that the characteristics of the individuals within a population change slowly over many generations.
Evidence? You can follow the slow morphological changes of limbs all the way from pre-dinosaur ocean life to modern animals.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/2/l_042_01.html
http://www.teaching-biomed.man.ac.uk/student_projects/2000/mnzo7cas/evolution.htm
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/projects97/Kagle.html
[QUOTE][b]I don't know if I can precisely define "basic kind," but I can tell you what I think it means.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
A large part of your initial argument depends upon the concept of 'kinds' whether you realize it or not. That argument in indefensible if you cannot define 'kind' very specifically and give evidence to back it up.
[QUOTE][b]John:Are wolves dogs?
Yes. What's your point?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
The point is to push you toward defining a 'kind'. Are house-cats and cheetahs the same kind, or different kinds? Are baboons and monkeys the same kind? Horses and donkeys?
quote:
John:If you alter a gene such that it has a different amino acid sequence than it had, is this not new? It was not there before....
How would it get altered in the first place? And how would it get altered at all?

Random mutation. This is a measurable effect. A chromosome is never copied perfectly. It is always being changed slightly by copying errors.
quote:
Yeah.. But why wouldn't the mutations that supposedly evolved us from a common ancestor be harmful instead of helpful?
Because the people who had the harmful mutations died. The people who had helpful mutations lived and reproduced, thereby passing along those mutations.
Besides, even small changes to a gene can result in massive changes to an organism.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-02g.html
quote:
John:This is called Social Darwinism and it isn't part of the ToE.
I know...
[/b]
Then why use the argument you did against the ToE?
quote:
Well, people still want to destroy the weak in this world... I mean, look at all the deaths in the wars and the power to suceed in anything... People want to crush the weak even today..
Look at all the people who band together for a common good. The family is an example. Cities, states, governments, trade alliances....
quote:
I see.. Um, could you explain to me how the eye is a product of evolution?
http://www.maayan.uk.com/evoeyes1.html
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html
quote:
Are viruses dead? Do they not eat people's bodies? So, they must be alive or else they wouldn't be able to do that..
Acid eats bodies. It isn't alive. Viruses actually don't eat in any real sense of the word anyway. They just reproduce. That's it. No eating, no drinking, no mating, no nothing. The point is to show you how fine the line is between living creatures and chemistry. We have today a class of organism-- the virus-- which doesn't meet most of the requirements for being a living organism. Why, then is it so hard to imagine abiogenesis?
quote:
But natural selection requires an organism to begin as crude and making it have disorder, then making it into an orderly system.
What? This sounds nothing like natural selection.
[QUOTE][b]How do I figure? Being created for the environment sounds the best to me.. Organisms adapt to environments.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
How do they adapt? This is the question evolution answers.
quote:
I've never seen or heard about an organism that evolved into an environment...
Sure you have. Bacteria are becoming dangerously resistant to our anti-bacterial drugs due to our extensive use of those drugs over last century. This is just the sort of 'evolution into an environment' you claim hasn't happened.
quote:
Because simillar patterns in organisms resulted in an organism being created.
This doesn't make sense.
[QUOTE][b]Natural selction couldn't've evolved them to the environment because that would've taken much more time than natural selection had time to do that in...[/QUOTE]
[/b]
hmmm.... have you done the math? Studied the math? Do you even know how much time we are dealing with?
quote:
Ok. Natural selection is a disorderly system that supposedly evolved organisms into us which in turn are more orderly systems.

You really need to get a grip on your terminology. Natural selection is NOT a disorderly system. Natural selection isn't even a system. The environment is a system. The planet is a system. Systems are collections of interelated parts, like a machine. The idea of natural selection describes a small part of the system. It describes how and which mutations accumulate in a population.
quote:
How could natural selection have produced such variety in the world if organisms had to come from a disorderly system?
Look around you!!! The planet is complicated but hardly disorderly. It is self-ordering, like marbles in a jar.
quote:
It had to precisely evolve every organism in the world, yet I don't how that could've happened...
The organisms you see today did not HAVE TO evolve. Billions of different organisms could have evolved. It just so happens that the one we see are the ones that actually did evolve.
quote:
John:You never get an exact duplicate ('cept for twins) How is this circular? You never ever ever return to the same starting point.
I'm not sure how to refute this...
You should figure it out. This idea runs through several of your initial arguments. If you can't refute this, you have to drop those arguements.
quote:
I know. Didn't we supposedly evolve from them (animals) too?
We are animals who evolved from other animals.
quote:
Based on the next to impossible chances of evolution ever having occured..
And what are those odds? Have you done the math? How did you make the calculations?
quote:
All you need is a tiny little self-replicating molecule to get things started. You do not need billions of parts or whole organisms falling together by chance.
I don't know what you're saying here...
[/b]
You don't have to have a fully functioning cell pop out of the primordial slime. All that needs to happen is for a small molecule to start making copies of itself. Something like this one http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/sak-peptides.html That molecule via copying errors, slowly becomes more like what we think of as life.
quote:
Yes they are... How are they not?
Laws of science are descriptions of data. They are not binding. New data can cause the laws to be refined or otherwise modified. Newton's Laws of Gravity for example, don't work at the core of black hole. The black hole is not bound to obey them. Newton got the description wrong-- well, only partially right. Einstein did much better by describing gravity as the warping of spacetime. Better? Einstein's equations describe more of the data than Newton's equations do.
quote:
There aren't extinct hominids...
Yes, there are.
Australopithicus afarensis
Australopithicus africanus
Australopithicus robustus
Australopithicus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo Neanderthalensis
quote:
And what exactly does Ancestor really mean?
Anscestor means 'those organisms from whom the organism in question descended'
quote:
John:
A monkey skull is not like every other monkey skull. They all have distinguishing characteristics.
Yeah, some monkeys have big skulls, little skulls, big hands, little hands, etc..
Its more complicated than that. Size isn't the best indicator of descent. But there are countless measurable traits that can be tracked. Things like peculiar cranial features that persist through hundreds of thousands or even millions of years.
quote:
John:Just as we would expect if we evolved from primate stock.
Which would be what, exactly?
You objected that no supposedly human skulls had been found outside the range of other types of primate. Assuming you are talking about the distant past (because now human skulls can be found in place where other primates don't live), you would expect to find pre-modern human skulls in exactly those places where other primates lived at the time.
quote:
The final three suppoed hominids of humans that were later revealed to be just humans and no part ape/money and human... And no, I won't stop with the "ape part bit."
Care to name those 'final three'?
There is no such thing as a part ape/monkey part human. There never was and no one claims there was. We are talking about the Island a Dr. Moreau. There were a string of anscestor critters, but they were no more part ape part human than a wolf is part dog.
quote:
But there have been floods in the past that have been big...
A big flood is not a global flood. Maybe you don't realize the significance of the difference, both scientifically and theologically.
quote:
What damage? And I didn't say that bacteria would eat the bone...
Damage? Scarring patterns suggesting that the animal had been killed by predators or gnawed on my scavengers.
You suggested that a carcass would be destroyed by bacteria if it were not fossilized rapidly. Bacteria do not destroy bone. This portion of the argument fails.
quote:
Interesting.. And what pattern?
The PATTERN YOU DESCRIBED!!!! ..... the circulating water of the flood (along with gravity)would cause smaller organisms to naturally bury lower and more mobile organisms, with the abilty to temporarily avoid the flood, woudl be buried close to the top.
You described the order of fossils in the geological record as you feel it would occur in the event of depostion by flood. This is not the pattern observed in the actual strata.
quote:
But fish swim... and so should have the best chance of all to survive, though they would ultimately succumb to the destructionn of thier habitat. Fish ought to be deposited high up.
Not if they're dead...
You've missed the point. The fish would be some of the last creatures to die and so would deposit at the top.
[QUOTE][b]How?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
There is no evidence at all pointing towards a global flood.... none.... zero.....
quote:
Like for example?
I don't have any example right now..
Then don't bring it up. Are you just spewing out something you heard?
Back up what you say. That's all I ask.
quote:
Where? Cite something. Roots do not count.
I don't have a site as of now....
Then don't bring it up. Are you just spewing out something you heard?
Back up what you say. That's all I ask.
quote:
I'll try to provide evidence for my assumption about plants to animals soon if I can find a site that'll tell me about it...
Plants and animals diverged from common stock not one from the other.
quote:
Mutations could, however, be random, small and harmful, could they?
Of course, happens a lot I imagine.
quoteFailure of Logic: begging the question. Statement is meaningless.
Whatever you say.. And what the heck does this mean?[/quote]
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm
[QUOTE][b]And I have done adequate journal searches...[/QUOTE]
I doubt that.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Conspirator, posted 07-23-2002 3:36 PM Conspirator has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 63 (14267)
07-27-2002 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Conspirator
07-18-2002 4:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Conspirator:
It's because evolutionists are so blinded by their own beliefs that they can't see the truth if it hit them in the ass.
I'll post my intense hatred for evolution/evolutionists real soon.

So, where'd you go, Conspirator?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Conspirator, posted 07-18-2002 4:20 PM Conspirator has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 63 (14296)
07-28-2002 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by mark24
07-28-2002 6:08 AM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
OK, I'm calling in those gambling debts........
Mark

I was thinking about that too. If you start from Conspirators registration date, July 18, and take gene's post on the 23rd as the cut-off date, then he made it 5 days.
If however, you start with C's first real post on the 22nd, he lasted ONE day!!!! Sheesh.... I thought he hated us much more than that. I mean, you'd think all that hate would provide more momentum than one day.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mark24, posted 07-28-2002 6:08 AM mark24 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 63 (14519)
07-30-2002 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by TrueCreation
07-30-2002 2:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Me thinks that while I would love to respond to Conspirators lengthy post, that It would be a futile offering if he isn't going to respond back.

Yes, I am sad that my last post shall die an unresponded death.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by TrueCreation, posted 07-30-2002 2:29 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Quetzal, posted 08-01-2002 11:24 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 63 (14708)
08-02-2002 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Quetzal
08-01-2002 11:24 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
Don't worry John, we still appreciate you. Did anyone else get the feeling that first lengthy post was a cut-and-paste? Syntax and grammar didn't seem to match the subsequent ones. Maybe s/he'll be back and explain where s/he's coming from.

Hi Quetzal...
Welcome back.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Quetzal, posted 08-01-2002 11:24 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 63 (14922)
08-06-2002 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Conspirator
08-06-2002 2:57 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Conspirator:
[B]And I didn't copy and paste anything from my first lengthy post because that would be a little something called "plagerism" which is illegal.[/quote]
[/b]
I, for one, am happy you are back.
Now, your posts are freakishly like the posts gene found. Your posts are almost exact copies. This doesn't happen by chance. Someone is a plagarist. Are you the plagarist, or is it the people who wrote the articles gene found who are plagarizing you?
quote:
So no, I haven't left. I'll never leave. Deal with it. Get over it.
ahhh.... the sweet smell of hubris.....
So come on now. I'm dealing with it. I'm over it. So how 'bout replying to my previous post?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Conspirator, posted 08-06-2002 2:57 PM Conspirator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024