Ahmmmmm! Really!
BUUUUUURP!!!
Sheeeeeeeeeesh!!! What a complete paranoid CRACKPOT!!!
You're an incredibly stupid kid when it comes to
trying to teaching you a thing a two - really.
But just so's that it might, on the oft chance,
penetrate that thick caveman cranium of yours - I'll say it a THIRD time - my
the post simply cited quotes from scientists who were mostly NOT creationists,
or religionists, but simply, unlike your deluded self - faced facts, and stated
that there is NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for the THEORY of evolution.
The THEORY, not fact - is a tool of the elite to
carry out its socio-economic and at times religio-political agenda, as did the
Nazis, as did the Soviet Communists as does your precious N.W.O. bogie
man.
Now I'm sorry to shatter your infantile delusions
about some cherished myth that you have blindly ascribed to as fact.
There are plenty of mythological sites dealing with
childish fairytales and fables - ask mommy to cyber toddle you over to
one - I'm sure that with the dummies and rattles intellectual
level you're currently exhibiting - you'll find the environment
suitable.
For the record, the only person that has thus
far mentioned "religion" here is your own
pompous and pious fuming self and what's even more credulous, below you even
appeal to "Jesus" Christ himself for support! You're really quite laughable in
you're duplicity and hypocrisy.
Are you some kind of dis-information agent
here? Though, you really don't sound intelligent enough to be one - as
every line you scrawl is riddled with contradiction - an unstable and closed
mindset more likely.
From what further I read below - you have an
inherent ignorance of the subject anyway, with your crapulous waffle off
topic again.
If you can
possibly tear yourself away from the epileptics you're in - this will be
abundantly evident, as it is to all readers here now.
The issue that has got stuck in your craw has
naught to do with "conspiracy theory" or your pious feigned search fro "truth"
but rather your control freak attitude, wishing to censor opinions that may
shatter your glib and paranoid view of life.
If you can't handle others opinions - I suggest you
swallow your own twaddle advice, and advise your thought police handlers of your inability to cope, i'm sure they'll find
another forum for your rants where you can play inquisitor and
censor.
You also piously pout yourself an "anarchist" as
this is supposed somehow endear you to me - but judging by the state of your
mental competence, anarchy would be more analogous to your brain function.
I conclude Mr goody-two-shoes do-gooder and
self-appointed forum censor, that "fraud and
charlatan" were thoroughly on-target - we can now also add hypocrite to your
character descript.
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one
hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the
validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any
support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary
phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved
by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it
was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct
factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more
aggressive advocates would have us believe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A
Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77. [non-religionist!]
"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an
exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true
students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by
natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very
process we profess to study."—*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp.
181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the
latter half of the twentieth century].
Gould himself perceived the shonky intellectual
bias in his own propaganda. These days he postures in priestly garb as the
evolutionary temples high priest - in fact, finally speaking in religious terms
about his formerly disguised evolutionists faith.
Writing an editorial in the magazine
Science, the frontispiece of the prestigious National Association for the
Advancement of Science, Stephen Jay Gould launched a direct attack on religion
thereby exposing the true religious nature of Darwinism and its hidden hand.
After quoting Psalm 8 “Thou has made him a little
lower than the angels...thou madest him to have dominion...thou has put all
things under his feet.” Gould went on to state, “Darwin removed this keystone of
false comfort more than a century ago, but many people still believe that they
cannot navigate this vale of tears without such a crutch.” Ending the article,
Gould admonished his readers, “Let us praise this
evolutionary nexus, a far more stately mansion for the human soul
than any pretty or parochial comfort ever conjured by our swollen neurology
to obscure the source of our physical being, or to deny the natural substrate
for our separate and complementary spiritual
quest.”
A zealous Gnostic priest couldn't have spoken finer
on behalf of his religious faith. Talk about a HIDDEN CONSPIRACY or
WHAT!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "nessie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2000 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: [CTRL] The MYTH of EVOLUTION -
SCIENTISTS SPEAK!
> >>Oh! Ahaaaahm ... I see.
> >
> >>I see that mommy forget to change junior's poohey nappy.
> >
> >And you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.
> >
> >However, that's not the topic of this particular list. This list is about
> >conspiracy theory, not your mother, not evolution, not abortion and not
> >comparative religion.
> >
>
> >>So . "nessie"? Hmmm .. doesn't your name appear under a post below
>
> >something about . Pffffffffffffffffft!!! "elephant poop".
> >
> >Perhaps. Refresh my memory. Cite the exact quote to which you refer.
> >
>
> >>This would have to be the most pious piece holier-than-thou paranoid
>
> >claptrap I've read on this list thus far.
> >
> >"Pious"!?! That's an interesting choice of terminology for you to use to
> >describe my attack on what is essentially a religious position, not for
> >BEING a religious position, but for being off topic and disruptive. I
> >think you are a little confused about what the word pious actually
> >means. Buy a dictionary.
> >
>
> >>Your pious "study of the truth" - what - by condemning it!
> >
> >I'm condemning what YOU say is the truth. I say it's
> a
> >superstitious delusion.
> This is not the proper venue for debating who's right. This is a
> conspiracy theory list. The comparative religion lists are somewhere else.
> >
> >
>
> >>You sound like a complete control freak.
> >
> >Far from it. I'm a life long anarchist activist. What I'm doing here is
> >opposing control. Again and again people who are either religious zealots
> >or paid infiltrators with disruptive intent have attempted to gain
> >control of this
> list
> >, flood it with their off topic propaganda and distract serious
> >researchers of honest intent for whom this space is a vital resource.
> >This is not an appropriate venue for the discussion of religious
> >doctrine. This is a venue dedicated to the discussion of conspiracy
> >theory. The net is FULL of venues dedicated to the discussion of
> >religious doctrine. Go do it there.
> >
>
> >>Well, if for a moment you can lay aside your infantile B.S. and paranoia
> >-the simple FACT is, that in the real world of the elite establishment -
> >areyou aware that people are discriminated against from such basic rights
> >as
>
> >employment for one example?
> >
> >This sentence isn't English. It's vocabulary is English
> , but
> > I can't tell what the syntax is. It sounds sort of Indo-European. Closer
> >than that I couldn't even guess. Could it be an obscure dialect of
> >Gibberish, perhaps? Or maybe it's Babble. Whatever it is, it's not
> >English.
> >
> >What exactly were you trying to say? Were you trying to say that the
> >world of the elite establishment is the real world? I disagree. It's part
> >of the real world, nothing more. Am I aware of employment discrimination?
> >Yes I am, and from personal experience. And you?
> >
>
> >>This discrimination is not based on lack of ability, but on the basis
> >that a
>
> >person does not subscribe to a
>
> >non-establishment view of the origins of life
>
> >and its associated social engineering dogma - this to me, seems would be
> >of
>
> >concern to ANYONE on a - supposed "Conspiracy" forum.
> >
> >What are you trying to say here, that it is the result of a conspiracy
> >that people are not hired to teach religious doctrine in the public
> >schools? This is not the result of a conspiracy but of very specific
> >wording in the US Constitution which prohibits the establishment of a
> >state religion.
> >
>
> >>The fact that there are brave men and women out there - prepared to stick
>
> >their necks on the line, not because they hold, or do not hold to a
>
> >particular religious view, and as the article indicated - most did not,
> >but
>
> >rather, that they had the tenacity to simply state the truth as they saw
>
> >it - even if contrary to the power and propaganda of the elites - this
> >seems
>
> >to have escaped your paranoid consensus reality and censorious mindset.
> >
> >Oh, I know they're out there alright. But they, their employment and
> >their religious doctrine are off topic here. Like I said, it's not a
> >conspiracy that keeps them from cramming their superstition down our
> >kids' throats. It's the Constitution.
> >
>
> >>Perhaps in future, you'd like to actually offer constructive rational
>
> >argument rather than attempt to demonise every post that your bigoted
> >little
> p
> >aranoiac bonehead disagrees with?
> >
> >Debate theory states that ad hominim attacks are a fairly good indication
> >that the debater has no evidence to present. Posts I disagree with fall
> >into two categories, on-topic posts and off topic posts. On topic posts I
> >either answer of ignore. Off topic posts don't belong here. They belong
> >in venues to whose focus their subjects are relevant.
> >
>
> >>And as far as spooks being on your paranoid delusional tail - I'm sure
> >they
>
> >have better things to do with their time than waste it on a silly prat
> >like
>
> >yourself - such as using the crapper - though on the other hand, the guys
>
> >from your local funny-farm - well . I'd advise you to keep looking over
> >your
>
> >shoulder!
> >
> >No problem. I like looking over my shoulder.
> It makes me feel good inside. And well it does, because s
> >ooner or latter one of you religious fanatics is going to try to kill my
> >ass just like
> they
> > did Alan Berg. Unlike Berg, I watch my back. I intend to see
> him
> > coming and when I do I intend to defend myself effectively.
> I'm armed, dangerous and ready rumble.
> >Capiesc'?
>
>
> This does not make me paranoid. This makes me a survivor. I'm 51, healthy
> and free, so I must be doing something right.
> >
> >
>
> >>And just for the record AGAIN - the majority of the quotes (would you
> >like
>
> >4,000 more - and referenced?) were from your own priestly elite -
> >
> >I'm an anarchist. We have no elite. If you want to have an elite, go
> >right ahead. We think you're making a serious mistake, but that's your
> >prerogative. It is not your prerogative to inflict them on us.
>
>
> As for quotations, it is not the number that counts but the sources and
> quality.
> >
> >
>
> >>the Evolutionists themselves, stating unequivocally that there IS NO
> >EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for their own THEORY.
> >
> >Using capital letters does not make what you write true.
> >
>
>
> >>The same E THEORY that Nazi Germany adopted to murder the weak,
> >malformed, minorities, and the demonised so-called racially impure.
> >
> >>The same E THEORY that your Social Engineers originally employed to
>
> >majoritively,
> >
> >
> >"Majoritively"!?! What's that mean
> in English
> >?
> >
>
>
> >>and racially target BLACK babies for abortive extermination.
> >
> >>The same E THEORY that Hitler based his Master Race plan, and racial
> >hatredon.
> >
> >>The same E THEORY that hastened steps toward the Holocaust, and
>
> >extermination of millions of Jews, and adopted by Nazi quacks to mutilate
>
> >and torture their human subjects because they were lower on the E THEORY
>
> >scale.
> >
> >You confuse evolution with eugenics. Like I said, buy a dictionary.
> >
>
>
> >>The same E THEORY that promotes imperialist capitalist dog-eat-dog,
> >survival of the fittest, and rapacious "progress" mentality to plunder
> >the weak, and the poor, and rape weaker nations of their sovereignty and
> >resources.
> >
> >
> >I
> ,
> > too
> ,
> > once believed that the Social-Darwinists drew their theory from Darwin.
> >After all, whatever else Darwin was he was human. That means he was as
> >much a product of his culture and are any of us. Darwin was an
> >Englishman. The English are, and have been for as long as anybody can
> >remember, a predatory People. Ask any of their victims. Start with their
> >neighbors and work outward in a spiral. You'll see. Ergo, I thought,
> >Darwin must have been culturally biased to give undue weight to the
> >relative value of predation in his theorizing.
> >
> >Then I read Steven J. Gould, who explains at length and in detail, in
> >numerous places, that Darwin never said what the Social-Darwinists say he
> >said.
> >
> >Then I read Darwin.
> And y
> >ou know what? Gould is dead right. Darwin never said any of that stuff the
> Social-Darwinists
> > say he
> said
> >.
> >
> >Have you read Darwin? If not, you don't know what you're talking about,
> >do you?
> >
> >It is significant that today people associate evolution with the name of
> >Darwin and not also with the names of Wallace and Kropotkin. This was not
> >always the case. It could be argued that Social-Darwinists in power
> >conspired to bring this about. We could talk about that. That is on
> >topic. Whether creationism or evolutionism is the more correct analysis
> >is not on topic.
> >
> >Personally, I favor Kropotkin's
> take on evolution
> >.
> A great man he was, that Kropotkin.
> >He was the Einstein of his day. He wrote
> , for example,
> > 22 articles for the 1888 Encyclopedia Britannica. If you ask
> ed
> > a typical man in the street in the late nineteenth century to name a
> >scientist, odds are he would have said, "Kropotkin." Such was Kropotkin's
> >renown as a scientist during his life
> time
> >. Yet he has been virtually expunged from history, not because of his
> >science, but because of his politics. Despite being born a Prince of the
> >house of Romanov, fourth in line to be Tsar, Kropotkin rejected his
> >class. He worked for a living all of his life. He was also an outspoken
> >anarchist. He was, in fact, one of our leading theoreticians. This meant
> >that both capitalist and communist educators found it politically
> >expedient to purge his name from history.
>
>
> Now that's on topic. So is a discussion of the Veliskovsky-like
> persecution of scientists who present anomolous evidence or heretical
> theories. The relative validity of that evidence and veracity of their
> theories is NOT on topic.
> >
> >
> Kropotkin's books, incidently,
> > are still in print
> . They are a little hard to find but they are available
> >. Check out:
> >
> >Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution by Peter Kropotkin
> >ISBN 0-87558-024-6
> >Porter, Sargeant Publishers Inc.
> >11 Beacon St.
> >Boston MA 02108
> >
> >
> >Even if creationism had merit enough to be taught as anything other than
> quaint
> >superstition, the problem of which creation myth to teach remains. If
> >Judeo-Christian-Islamic creationism
> is to be taught in public schools
> >, why not Hindu creationism or Wiccan creationism? If I were to abandon
> >science for myth, I'd
> definitely
> >choose
> the
> >Kwakuitl version of where we come from. Raven went for a walk on the
> >beach. He turned over a clam shell and underneath it found First Man and
> >First Woman. It's as good a myth as any and all else being equal, I much
> >prefer Raven to Yahweh. Raven, for all his mischief, is a pretty nice guy
> compared to Yahweh
> >. Even his
> tricks and
> >mischief
> are
> > good for us because
> from them we learn
> > thing
> s
> > we need to know. Yahweh, on the other hand is a vain, selfish, jealous,
> >bloodthirsty tyrant.
> >
>
> >
> >>The same E THEORY that led Ted Bundy to kill wantonly - writes Dr Loftus,
> >"he rambled on once about hunters who stalked and killed deer and were
> >never plagued by a guilty conscience. Why are we so moralistic, Bundy
> >wanted to know, when it comes to human life? Why is a human life worth
> >more than a deer's life?" [1] Now I wonder which E THEORY taught him that!
>
>
> Curious that you find Bundy so fascinating that you read an entire book on
> the subject. What does this tell us about the workings of your mind?
> >
> >
> >Bundy killed because he was a psychopath. It is disingenuous to imply
> >that it was Darwin's fault. This is not to say that Darwin's words cannot
> >be twisted to suit the agenda of people with whom Darwin himself would
> >profoundly differ. The
> y
> > can and they have been
> twisted repeatedly
> >. In this
> ,
> > Darwin is far from alone.
> >
> >Consider Jesus of Nazareth. "Love one another," said Jesus. Yet
> >Christians have robbed, raped, murdered and enslaved more human beings tha
> n
> > any other
> single bunch
> > of
> people
> > in all
> of
> >human history. Is that Jesus's fault? I don't think so.
> I think Jesus would be disgusted.
> >
> >
> >
> >>So tell us My big shot guru of "Conspiracy Theories" - what "THEORY"
> >drives
>
> >your precious bogie man NEW WORLD ORDER - if not the same E THEORY that
> >the Third Reich put into such horrid PRACTICE - which, as you say, is
> >your OWN
>
> >blindly accepted as fact E THEORY also -
> >
> >The New World Order, or the Neo-Liberals, or the Elite, or the Ruling
> >Class or whatever you care to call them, are driven by selfish greed,
> >nothing more and nothing less. Our rulers are selfish, greedy men. Their
> >fathers were selfish, greedy men. Their grandfathers were selfish, greedy
> >men. And so on, all the way back to the founding of the first hierarchal
> >society back on the steppes of what is now Russia, four to six thousand
> >years ago, long, long before evolution was ever conceived of.
>
> >
> >>you intellectual fraud and charlatan.
> >
> >Sticks and stones may break my bones, but name calling doesn't prove your
> >case or make you look very smart
> either
> >. Au contrair, they make you look intellectually bankrupt and your
> >position
> appear
> > bereft of validity.
> >
> >Any good library has a number of books on debate. Read one. Perhaps then
> >you'd look less the fool. While you're there, check out a couple books on
> >logic. Read up on scientific method. You could stand to learn some
> >comparative religion, as well. Some familiarity with common etiquette
> >wouldn't do you any harm, either. And of course, don't forget Darwin
> >himself.
> First read Darwin. Then talk about him. That way you won't look so stupid
> afterwards.
> >
> >
> >In the meantime either stay on topic or go away.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
> ==========
> CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
> screeds are unwelcomed. Substance-not soap-boxing-please! These are sordid
> matters
> and 'conspiracy theory'-with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
> frauds-is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
> spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
> gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
> be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
> nazi's need not apply.
>
> Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
> ========================================================================
> Archives Available at:
> http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
> <A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
>
> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
> <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
> ========================================================================
> To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
> SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
> SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Om
>
