From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 18:39:58 GMT

From the post that you are replying to, Antti, I said:
>>PS:  If you indend to reply with one of your usual "content-free, blind
>>assertion" posts, don't even bother.

You obviously didn't heed the warnings.
btw, I'm responding to three of his posts at once.  Hey, they're just a
bunch of stupid one-liners anyway.

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
>>Could you please explain what you read between the lines that made you come
>>to that conclusion?
>
>	I read that the proof is actually 0. 

Oh.  So you admitt that you really have no proof or even any evidence for
your assertions.  Just what I figured all along.  I knew there had to be a
reason you were coming up with only a bunch of dumb**** one-liners whenever
asked for an intelligent discussion of your views.

>>Many "evolutionists," as you call them, do work out in the field.  Do you
>>really think evolution is only limited to fossils and museum pieces of dead
>>animals?
>
>	Shouldn't be.              

Shouldn't be what?  "Evolutionists shouldn't be out in the field." or
"Evolution shouldn't be just fossils and museum pieces."?

>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint


From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:29:01 GMT

>mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>What then do you call biology?  Please tell us the criteria by which you
>>judge.
>
>	I accept the common criteria to science. 

That's not an answer to the question.  What are the criteria?  Your answer
above don't work, since we need to assume you really know what you're
talking about when you say that.  Given your previous responces, I tend to
doubt that.

>>Show us how it can't be true.  Empty claims are all you've presented.
>
>	I think most anti-evolution books contain that one for you. 

All these anti-evolution books have is the same o'le tripe that has been
refuted time and time again.  All of it comes from 1) blatent distortion of
evolution, 2) misquoting and quoting out of context of scientists to make it
appear they refute evolution when they don't, 3) making up their own natral
laws or applying natural laws in way they shouldn't be applied to make
evolution impossible, 4) making up their own evidence, and ignoring the
evidence on the other side, and 5) just plain appealing to people's set
religious dogma.

I would suggest that you bring up some claims of your own explaining why
evolution is wrong.  Or are you too afraid that they can't stand the light
of day and wish to continue on in some fantasy world?

From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:31:14 GMT

>kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>  Antti, if you look at this carefully you will se it proves exactly the
>>opposite of what you're trying to prove.  You wan't to find a single species
>>with different structure, not three different species with a similar structure. 
>>You ahve actually confirmed Chris' point.
>
>	That is the problem: The same data, different results. 

But can you really show that your results are better than Chris'?

>>  Hard to ask them when we are givenb partial names.  Can you at least narropw
>>it down to a country so there are only a few thousand phone books to search
>>through?
>
>	They are in the BBS system. 

Do you have any friggen idea how large the Internet is???  If they are here
on the internet, care to give us their full names along with mail addresses?
=======

Antti, you have been asked on numerous occasions in the past month to
explain some of your views about evolution.  You have responded with a load
of drivel.  I'd suggest that if you really wish to continue this discussion,
you get your act together and bring up some real points!  If not, stop
wasting the bandwidth with your one-liners.  (the original content for most
of your posts is down around the 5-10% region.)


|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |