alt.politics.republicans

Dan Kimmel wrote:
> "kT" wrote in message
> news: $ @ ...
>> Dan Kimmel wrote:
>>> "kT" wrote in message
>>> news: $ @ ...
>>>> Dan Kimmel wrote:
>>>>> "kT" wrote in message
>>>>> news: $ @ ...
>>>>>> Dan Kimmel wrote:
>>>>>>> "kT" wrote in message
>>>>>>> news: $ @ ...
>>>>>>>> Dan Kimmel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Religion and science are two different things.
>>>>>>>>>> Really? I can't believe I missed that. Such a great insight.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, you have nothing because you're making wild assumptions in
> the
>>>>>>>>> absence
>>>>>>>>>>> of any evidence.
>>>>>>>>>> Absence of evidence permits no assumptions.
>>>>>>>>> Which is why you're looking so foolish.
>>>>>>>> Yes, we should just ignore the unknown, scientific methods are
> proven
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> be ineffective in discovering new and previously unknown phenomena.
>>>>>>> Who is arguing this? See, this is why you're looking like an idiot.
>>>>> You're
>>>>>>> fighting strawmen. Go take it up with some fundementalist. It's a
>>>>>>> viewpoint I was arguing *against*.
>>>>>> Wouldn't that be creationist harrassment? By definition religion is
>>>>>> creationism, just with a different timescale and different processes.
>>>>> You show your ignorance again. Most Jewish and Christian groups
> reject
>>>>> "creationism."
>>>>>
>>>>> One can see God's hand in the process of evolution while acknowledging
>>> that
>>>>> proving such is completely beyond the realm of science and therefore
> not
>>> an
>>>>> appropriate subject for science education.
>>>> Can you explain to us what you see, in what can't be seen by
> definition?
>>>> Just curious. I mean, if you think you see something certainly science
>>>> should investigate it. You never know, it might be something entirely
>>>> new, like a transmorgrifier, for instance. Post quantum mechanics
> stuff.
>>> Once again, faith and science are separate fields, and the tools of one
> are
>>> not of much use in the other. Most religious people (and, many if not
> most
>>> people who recognize the truths of science, including actual scientists)
> see
>>> no conflict here. It's only doctrinaire extremists -- like Pat
> Robertson
>>> and yourself -- who do.
>> It's only because you're butt fucking dumb, and never had a critical
>> thought in your lives. Most people are like that, just like you.
>
> If you only knew how off-base you were you'd stop humiliating yourself like
> this.
>
> As noted, you're an extremist, the mirror of Pat Robertson, demanding that
> people choice when no such choice is necessary.
>
>
>> I have to admit, you've got me there.
>
> More than you realize.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm merely working with the evidence I have, the existence of
>>>>>>>>>> mathematics and mathematicians to consider such things.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That wouldn't be you, apparently. I suppose I could have
> predicted
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>> You can't predict anything because your premises are completely
>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>> Cuz yous says soz, on the usenet.
>>>>>>> No, because you're responding to me as if I said something the
>>> complete
>>>>>>> opposite of what I actually posted.
>>>>>> Has it dawned on you yet that I am satirizing you to the extreme?
>>>>> Has it dawned on you that you don't have a clue? You aren't
> satirizing
>>> *me*
>>>>> at all. You making fun of some fundamentalist whose views I do not
>>> support
>>>>> in the slightest.
>>>> Nor do I support the views of 'religionists' like yourself.
>>> Yes, you're an extremist like Pat Robertson. He's on one end. You're
> on
>>> the other. Most of us are in the middle, having no problem with
> religion OR
>>> science.
>> Ignorance must be bliss.
>
> You're certainly proving it with your ignorant posts.

Proof is the realm of mathematics, I thought I explained that already.

>> It's easy to find no problems with things you
>> don't understand. That's what religion is all about, and that is
>> precisely how stupid fucks like you have destroyed science in the US.
>
> No, moron, it's why extremists like you think there's a conflict between
> religion and science.

Yes, there is a clear conflict between religion and science.

How do you distinguish between God and simple advanced alien technology?

> I abhor the stupidity of the Bush admistration and their war on scientific
> knowledge. I also abhor the ignorance and bigotry of extemists such as
> yourself. I'm not interested in converting you or anyone else. I'm simply
> noting that you don't have the slightest notion of what you're talking
> about.

I'm talking about butt fucking dumb scientists who see no conflict
between science and religion. They are usually called - bureaucrats.

I suppose you see no conflict between religion and government as well.