Re: Macroevolution FAQ 2.1D

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 19:03:44 GMT, NashtOn <nana@xxxxx> wrote:

>Robert Weldon wrote:
>> "NashtOn" <nana@xxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:2U5Af.158913$Ph4.4819097@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>>Joshua Zelinsky wrote:
>>>
>>>>*snipping very good FAQ draft that appears to have been cut off midway*
>>>>Just one suggestion- it might make sense to have a section to discuss
>>>>the shifting goalposts problem, particularly the changing creationist
>>>>defintions of macroevolution.
>>>>
>>>>- Josh Zelinsky
>>>>
>>>
>>>The creationists shifting of the term? You're joking, right?
>>
>>
>> You're a lying creationist apologist, right?
>
>No reason to get all Jihadist.

aint it wonderful when a fundie religious fanatic uses a fundie
religous fanatic term to describe someone else?

the irony is beautiful

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Progress of the new board
    ... the one you probably figured would misbehave, but if he had remained civil ... (Just joking, just ... Whatever the reason, I concur the banning wasn't justified. ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: Progress of the new board
    ... the one you probably figured would misbehave, but if he had remained civil ...  (Just joking, just ... Whatever the reason, I concur the banning wasn't justified. ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: Progress of the new board
    ... he had remained civil there would have been no reason to ban him. ... (Just joking, ... Whatever the reason, I concur the banning wasn't justified. ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: Katie gets mamogram tomorrow on Today!
    ... >>> Please tell me you're joking. ... >>> Yet another reason to not watch that trainwreck of a show. ...
    (rec.arts.tv)