please, dont refer to my "teachers". i based my statements off my own reading of darwins work. only way to interpret or critique someones work is to actually read it yourself. in addition, you assume much, that i agree with all darwins theories, that i dont speak other languages, the form of my education, ect. dont assume, youve made enough of an ass out of yourself already.
Richard and I are unwilling to let your misguided ideas go unchallenged, Leaking. I realize that you don't see it now, but we're doing you a favor. I call it the education of Leaking.
As for your education, you said that you'd been to college. You've picked up the intellectual establishment's Party Line somewhere. However, you clearly didn't gain an appreciation for the necessity of capitalization in freshman English.
As for Charles Darwin. A program aired last evening on Trinity Broadcasting System, I assume that you missed it. They quoted a scientist who lived in the late 19 century. He said that, "we believe Darwin's hypothesis not because it looks tenable, but because the alternative is a creator, which is unacceptable." If you read Parksie's column in last week's What's New, you will notice his attack on Intelligent Design. He points out that the press ignored the debate that the I D advocates staged, why am I not surprised? Parksie said it himself."if you believe in an entity (G-d) who manipulates DNA, you are terminally ignorant." Hum, well we can't both be right. The program also pointed out that Darwin believed white people to be superior to everyone else, and man to be intellectual superior to women. Wow, the feminist intelligencia would have a hissy fit over both of those ideas.
