DC> DC> DC>LOL!  I see that you haven't bothered to provide the
DC> DC> DC>scientific theory  of ID/creationism.  
DC> 
DC> DC> JB> It is irrelevant to the discussion.  
DC> 
DC> DC>The only way you could be more wrong about that is to continue to
DC> DC>believe  the horse shit called "Intelligent design"
has anything
DC> DC>to do with science. 

DC> JB> You continue with your lies.  I've made no such statement about
DC>ID.  I

DC>You have refused, yet again, to provide the scientific theory of ID.

It is irrelevant to the topic at hand and not something I chose to 
discuss with you.  But none of that changes the fact that I have not 
made a claim one way or the other and yet you continue to claim that I 
have.  


DC> JB> have stated that it is an alternative viewpoint which brings up 
DC> JB> questions that current scientific theory cannot answer.  

DC>Does that make it scientific, you idiot?  Yet, you want a bunch of 
DC>mythology taught as an alternative to sound science.  

It is an alternative viewpoint that you appear to fear.  I have made no 
comments as to whether I believe it is based upon science or not.  I 
have only stated, many times for you, that it can provide some answers 
for many things with the current theory of evolution can't.    

 
DC> DC>That you push that abortion as an "alternate theory to
Evolution"
DC> DC>is  prima facae evidence that you don't know shit about shinola,
DC> DC>let aline  science.  

DC> JB> You obviously fear anything which threatens your dogma.  

DC>If disgust for abject ignorance such as you evince equates with fear,
DC>the answer would be yes.  You and your kind are intent on bring back 
DC>the dark ages of superstition.  

And yet it is you and your kind who fear open debate, tolerance and do 
not want to engage in any discussions which contradict your dogma.  



Jeff

CMPQwk 1.42-21 9999 
Democrats --  The party of death ......

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10