Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: bitbucket55@hotmail.com (John Drayton)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: To all earlier responders
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 10:39:59 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 70
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <ce43f6e.0401030240.762ce2bc@posting.google.com>
References: <BmTIb.35848$Vs3.16793@twister.socal.rr.com> <3MYIb.44477$dP1.178333@newsc.telia.net> <SH%Ib.36352$Vs3.31790@twister.socal.rr.com> <vv95u3s8369b1d@corp.supernews.com> <If1Jb.3562$ml6.833@bignews4.bellsouth.net> <bt2buf$7t8$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl> <6di9vvkcg81vrb5btrt3n6hmlc8fhiagqp@4ax.com> <3ff4ec31_4@corp.newsgroups.com> <bt3oo0$7dc$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl> <abdf273b.0401021939.500cccc6@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1073126399 80293 128.100.83.246 (3 Jan 2004 10:39:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 10:39:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.113.200.155
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:1591
boikat@bellsouth.net (Boikat) wrote in message news:<abdf273b.0401021939.500cccc6@posting.google.com>...
> "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message news:<bt3oo0$7dc$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>...
> > > Bible Bob wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >>If I were a netkop, which I'm not, I'd be researching supernews' forgery
> > > >>policy right now....
> > > >>
> > > >>Uncle Davey
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Good work Uncle Davey
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes. See what happens when you do some elementary research before
> posting?
> > >
> > > Shoulda done that before you yammered ignorantly about the "moon dust"
> > > and the "we only use ten percent of our brains", huh.
> > >
> >
> > I've already retracted the moon dust on the advice of other Christians, I
> > was just pointing out that some, including my pastor, still isn't buying the
> > retraction.
> >
>
> Just out of curiosity, you say you retracted your moon dust on the
> advice of other Christians. Does that mean you only retract errors
> when they are pointed out by Christians, but not if they are pointed
> out by an agnostic or an atheist, even if they offered the same
> advice?
>
>
> > As for the percentage of brain use, so far, unless I missed something, there
> > has been only anecdotal, journalistic evidence put up by the total use side.
So you feel free to use this piece of "evidence" against
evolution, without it having any basis?
Davey, what you appear to be saying is that it's ok
for creationists to used fabricated figures and
arguments until someone can absoutely prove them wrong.
You have no basis for the 10% figure, so why make the
claim? Why not stop using it until you can find if it
has any basis at all?
Here's something for you to look at:
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html
Perhaps you will take a the word of a creationist organisation:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/brain.asp
".. this oft-repeated belief is just plain wrong. If it
were true, things which damage the brain would not have
such drastic consequences for our ability to think, speak,
and remember."
--
John Drayton
> >
> > Uncle Davey
>
>
> Boikat
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 |
| 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 |
|