holzman at panix.com (Dan Holzman) wrote:
>In article <3d9e4d69.9850404 at news1.lig.bellsouth.net>,
>Jd <JDay123 at BellSouth.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>I'm never amused when evolutionists have no idea what their theory
>>>>says. The current version obviously intrudes on the origins of
>>>>>>Cite a reference, please.
>>>>No. I've already been told that my encyclopedia is wrong.
>>If you will not cite a reference about such a claim, then you've no
>right to expect to have the claim taken seriously.
I don't want or need any of those types of rights. Like I told BobC
(which he couldn't muster the courage to answer) I've met God
himself. I've learned that I will have far fewer (if any) problems
with folks who've become right with God than with folks who are not.
If someone doesn't take my words seriously why should I have any
respect whatsoever for them? Why should I be bound by the morals
and ethics of men who don't trust their fellow man and are living in
the shadows of suspicion? I think the guys who tried to keep Jesus
and the disciples from eating free corn on the sabbath were the very
same suspicious and untrustful type.
>>As a Biologists however, I assure you that many of the folks here are
>>blowing smoke and breaking wind at the same time.
>>I'd already clocked two in this very discussion: John Knight and you.
>>Argument from authority doesn't cut it, either.
Doesn't cut what? Usually when folks want me to read between the
lines they write at least 2 lines.