Craig Chilton says Bible accuracy is "...inerrancy, inexorability, and inevatability” “no if, ands, or buts.”
leroy blue
http://www.egalitarian.biz/Preterism-Refuted.html
The second-most facinating aspect of Bible prophecy is its utter
inerrancy, inexorability, and inevatability. If it's prophetic,
and it's in the Bible, then it either already has happened, or
it darned well will happen -- no if, ands, or buts.
Hey Craig!
The Bible says faggots are going to die and be sent to burn in
hell.
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<lero...@billon.net> spake thusly:
>> The second-most facinating aspect of Bible prophecy
>> is its utter inerrancy, inexorability, and inevatability.
>> If it's prophetic, and it's in the Bible, then it either
>> already has happened, or it darned well will happen
>> -- no if, ands, or buts.
>
> Hey Craig!
>
> The Bible says faggots are going to die and be sent
> to burn in hell.
And yet, Craig says there's nothing wrong with
homosexual acts. I get it. It's hypocrisy on
his part and I agree. It is. But that's Craig. :)
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"The face is the mirror of the mind and eyes without speaking
confess the secrets of the heart." -Saint Jerome
teresita
> The second-most facinating aspect of Bible prophecy is its utter
> inerrancy, inexorability, and inevatability. If it's prophetic, and it's
> in the Bible, then it either already has happened, or it darned well
> will happen -- no if, ands, or buts.
That's what Jonah thought when he said Ninevah would be nuked in forty
days. The people repented, God didn't do it, and Jonah was VERY
disappointed.
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
CB
"leroy blue" <lero...@billon.net> wrote in message
news:344687bcace969e7...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
They'll start off with a colostomy bag here on Earth
Homosexuality is a Diseased Lifestyle
http://british-nation.tripod.com/diseased.htm
SilentOtto
> "leroy blue" <leroyb...@billon.net> wrote in message
Name one thing homosexuals do that heterosexuals don't also do.
Heh heh...
Rightard closet queers...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
CB
"Johannes von Ebersdorf" <eber...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:saafj517vn9mk57hi...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:29:48 -0500, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>>> The Bible says faggots are going to die and be sent to burn in
>>> hell.
>>>
>
> real-world significance.
For losers who have no faith but to die without hope of an after life. Life
must be very swift for you
anonymous
For anyone to call someone a loser because they beleive something
different is impolite and childish.
How could relgious people who hate and want to stone people expect an
afterlife?
As far as the swiftness of life, my good man, life is roughly 20,000
days for the average person regigious or not. That is roughly 2,300
weekends, so everyone should lead and life their life as they wish.
CB
"anonymous" <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:4B3A6573...@anonymous.com...
Oh to be young again and see no end to life on Planet Earth.
The older I get the more I marval at the creations God has made and so short
of time to show others the way to the other side in faith.
It is a loser who's lost and cannot see past them self, on Earth, into
infinity.
CB
>>
>> "Johannes von Ebersdorf" <eber...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:saafj517vn9mk57hi...@4ax.com...
>> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:29:48 -0500, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> The Bible says faggots are going to die and be sent to burn in
>> >>> hell.
>> >>>
>> >
>> > The bible is a collection of myths and fables of very little
>> > real-world significance.
>>
>> For losers who have no faith but to die without hope of an after life.
>> Life
>> must be very swift for you
>
> For anyone to call someone a loser because they beleive something
> different is impolite and childish.
Did you forget what Johannes von Ebersdorf said?
am...@e4word.com
(in article
<e17ec4d8-8eb6-43d0...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>):
> On Dec 27, 9:29ï¿œam, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>> "leroy blue" <leroyb...@billon.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:344687bcace969e7...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://www.egalitarian.biz/Preterism-Refuted.html
>>
>>> The second-most facinating aspect of Bible prophecy is its utter
>>> inerrancy, inexorability, and inevatability. If it's prophetic,
>>> and it's in the Bible, then it either already has happened, or
>>> it darned well will happen -- no if, ands, or buts.
>>
>>> Hey Craig!
>>
>>> The Bible says faggots are going to die and be sent to burn in
>>> hell.
>>
>> They'll start off with a colostomy bag here on Earth
>>
>> Homosexuality is a Diseased
>> Lifestylehttp://british-nation.tripod.com/diseased.htm
>
> Name one thing homosexuals do that heterosexuals don't also do.
1) Heterosexual men don't suck dicks, 2) Homosexual women don't suck dicks.
Shortened Life Span of Homosexuals
The greater incidence of physical and mental health problems among gays
and lesbians has serious consequences for length of life. While many
are aware of the death toll from AIDS, there has been little public
attention given to the magnitude of the lost years of life.
An epidemiological study from Vancouver, Canada of data tabulated
between 1987 and 1992 for AIDS-related deaths reveals that male
homosexual or bisexual practitioners lost up to 20 years of life
expectancy. The study concluded that if 3 percent of the population
studied were gay or bisexual, the probability of a 20-year-old gay or
bisexual man living to 65 years was only 32 percent, compared to 78
percent for men in general. The damaging effects of cigarette smoking
pale in comparison -cigarette smokers lose on average about 13.5 years
of life expectancy.
The impact on length of life may be even greater than reported in the
Canadian study. First, HIV/AIDS is underreported by as much as 15-20
percent, so it is likely that not all AIDS related deaths were accounted
for in the study. Second, there are additional major causes of death
related to gay sex. For example, suicide rates among a San Francisco
cohort were 3.4 times higher than the general U.S. male population in
1987. Other potentially fatal ailments such as syphilis, anal cancer,
and Hepatitis B and C also affect gay and bisexual men
disproportionately.
teresita
> The greater incidence of physical and mental health problems among gays
> and lesbians has serious consequences for length of life.
What physical and mental health problems for lesbians? Your article
talks about AIDS, what does that have to do with lesbians?
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
Budikka666
The challenge I offered you in this thread:
http://tinyurl.com/nubnxr
on May 11th 2009, only to see you RUN AWAY.
Unmet challenge #2
Provide *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation. Not Bible
quotes. Not quotes from creationists or atheists or evolutionists.
Not divine revelation. Not juvenile unsupported ignorant assertions.
Not chants of 'no it isn't!'. Not counter challenges when you haven't
even met ours, but *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation.
Unmet challenge #3
Provide evidence that shows how DNA is the work of a creator. Show us
this evidence and explain how it demonstrates a creator.
Unmet challenge #4
Support claims that bacteria have never arisen from anything other
than bacteria/life has never arisen from anything but life.
Unmet challenge #5
Provide evidence in support of the creationist claim that information
cannot be added to a genome.
Unmet challenge #6
Define scientifically what the "genetic boundaries" are: specifically
what the mechanism is which (according to creationist claims) prevents
one species from evolving into another species over time.
Unmet Challenge #7
Provide your scientific evidence (as opposed to your LYING,
unsupported bullshit, which has been refuted repeatedly) to support
your creationist claim that life cannot arise from organic chemistry,
when scientists have repeatedly demonstrated that the truth is quite
to the contrary
Unmet Challenge #8
Prove that there's a god out there waiting to judge me when I die.
Otherwise you and your creationist fundie ilk are nothing but pathetic
LIARS and FRAUDS.
Unmet Challenge #9
Prove that we have a soul. Demonstrate scientifically where it is and
what its purpose is.
Unmet Challenge #10
Prove that this fictional Jesus isn't fictional and that he literally
died and that he came back to life and went to Heaven.
Here's a list of the strongest advocates of creation on Usenet WHO
HAVE FLED one or more of these challenges:
Chicken Adman
Chicken Andrew
Chicken Brother Ted
Chicken Codebreaker
Chicken Curtjester1
Chicken Duke
Chicken Gabriel
Chicken I'll Be Bauck
Chicken Pastor Dave
Let's face it, NOT A SINGLE creationist on Usenet has been able to
find the guts to face these challenges. This fictional god of theirs
has deserted every one of these liars and frauds That's what a sad,
pathetic and vacuous bunch of lousy, low-life scum they are.
Case closed. End of story. End of You.
Budikka
juanjo
>
> Shortened Life Span of Homosexuals
>
> The greater incidence of physical and mental health problems among gays
> and lesbians has serious consequences for length of life. While many
> are aware of the death toll from AIDS, there has been little public
> attention given to the magnitude of the lost years of life.
>
> An epidemiological study from Vancouver, Canada of data tabulated
> between 1987 and 1992 for AIDS-related deaths reveals that male
> homosexual or bisexual practitioners lost up to 20 years of life
> expectancy. The study concluded that if 3 percent of the population
> studied were gay or bisexual, the probability of a 20-year-old gay or
> bisexual man living to 65 years was only 32 percent, compared to 78
> percent for men in general. The damaging effects of cigarette smoking
> pale in comparison -cigarette smokers lose on average about 13.5 years
> of life expectancy.
>
Our right wing fundamentalist friends have once again beaten the
bushes looking for data they can distort and use to form ill advised
conclusions upon which to continue their argument for hatred and
prejudice against the homosexual community. Below is a comment by the
author of the study being referenced by this anonymous coward.
Robert S Hogg, Steffanie A Strathdee, Kevin JP Craib, Michael V
O'shaughnessy, Julio Montaner and Martin T Schechter
British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, St Paul's
Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Canada. E-mail:
bob...@hivnet.ubc.ca
Over the past few months we have learnt of a number of reports
regarding a paper we published in the International Journal of
Epidemiology on the gay and bisexual life expectancy in Vancouver in
the late 1980s and early 1990s. From these reports it appears that our
research is being used by select groups in US and Finland to suggest
that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is
destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups
appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and
bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being.
The aim of our research was never to spread more homophobia, but to
demonstrate to an international audience how the life expectancy of
gay and bisexual men can be estimated from limited vital statistics
data. In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre,
life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21
years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality
continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men
currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. Under
even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban
centre were experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced
by men in Canada in the year 1871. In contrast, if we were to repeat
this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would
be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined
dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously
reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver
as well as in other parts of British Columbia.
It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is
a descriptive and not a prescriptive measure. Death is a product of
the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he
or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual
orientation or any other ethnic or social factor. If estimates of an
individual gay and bisexual man's risk of death is truly needed for
legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use
the same actuarial tables that are used for all other males in that
population. Gay and bisexual men are included in the construction of
official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all
males are the appropriate ones to be used.
In summary, the aim of our work was to assist health planners with the
means of estimating the impact of HIV infection on groups, like gay
and bisexual men, not necessarily captured by vital statistics data
and not to hinder the rights of these groups worldwide. Overall, we do
not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the
political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.
juanjo
> Shortened Life Span of Homosexuals
>
> The greater incidence of physical and mental health problems among gays
> and lesbians has serious consequences for length of life. While many
> are aware of the death toll from AIDS, there has been little public
> attention given to the magnitude of the lost years of life.
>
> An epidemiological study from Vancouver, Canada of data tabulated
> between 1987 and 1992 for AIDS-related deaths reveals that male
> homosexual or bisexual practitioners lost up to 20 years of life
> expectancy. The study concluded that if 3 percent of the population
> studied were gay or bisexual, the probability of a 20-year-old gay or
> bisexual man living to 65 years was only 32 percent, compared to 78
> percent for men in general. The damaging effects of cigarette smoking
> pale in comparison -cigarette smokers lose on average about 13.5 years
> of life expectancy.
>
> The impact on length of life may be even greater than reported in the
> Canadian study. First, HIV/AIDS is underreported by as much as 15-20
> percent, so it is likely that not all AIDS related deaths were accounted
> for in the study. Second, there are additional major causes of death
> related to gay sex. For example, suicide rates among a San Francisco
> cohort were 3.4 times higher than the general U.S. male population in
> 1987. Other potentially fatal ailments such as syphilis, anal cancer,
> and Hepatitis B and C also affect gay and bisexual men
> disproportionately.
>
>
It goes without saying that our fundamentalist friends have pulled out
all the stops in screwing around with scientific studies and the data
they present in order to twist them into presenting a false picture
upon which to base erroneous conclusions about homosexual men and
women. The great irony of all this is of course the fact these idiots
always will cite to data when it "supports" their cause but will
attack the same data mercilessly when it does not. Below is a
response to the current myth of gays living 20 years shorter lifespans
than straight men, responding to the assertions contained above where
these same fundamentalist fools misused a study to claim something it
was never supposed to support.
In 1997 a team from Vancouver, Canada, published a methodology for
estimating the impact of the HIV epidemic on the average life
expectancies of gay and bisexual men. The team used infection and
mortality data from Vancouver and for the period 1987 to 1992.
It had long been difficult for HIV/AIDS researchers to estimate, with
gratifying certainty, the impact of the disease on the general
population. The difficulties were compounded when estimating the
impact on the sub-group of gay and bisexual men because there was
little consensus on just how large this sub-group was.
For example, should figures be based on:
* the 2-3% of men who will be open open about their current
homosexual behaviour in a survey, or
* the larger group (4-6%) of men who will be open about having had
a same-sex relationship during the past 5 to 10 years, or
* the still larger again group of men that will -- at some time in
their life -- do so at least once?
Whatever figure is used, and whatever is not, has a considerable
impact on epidemiological models for the spread and containment of the
disease. This is because of an inherent multiplier effect whenever a
small minority is examined and when the base assumptions thereby vary
by a factor of -- in this case -- up to 4 or 5.
Attempting to simply side-step any debate about the size of the sub-
group of men that are gay/bisexual and yet still be able to provide
meaningful data; Hogg et al published a methodology that made the
estimations across a range. Readers were able to select their own
preferred size for the sub-group. For their purposes, the researchers
took figures of 3%, 6% and 9% as the proportion of men that could be
classified as gay or bisexual and used these to generate the reported
outcomes.
The outcomes reported in this paper have been seized upon by many anti-
gay political groups, and in turn quoted ad nauseum on many
occasions. The paper has been quoted for as varying reasons as
marriage legislation around same-sex couples, influencing sex
education in schools and providing reasoning behind ex-gay programs.
In general, a quote of "homosexuality cuts 20 years off your life" or
"homosexuality is more dangerous than smoking" is usually attributed
to this paper; particularly as the use of a parallel claim by the
virulently anti-gay (and disreputable) psychologist Paul Cameron has
been exposed as a fiction and fallen into disuse.
(As a general rule: when the term "20 years off your life" or similar
is used, the claimant is referring to this work by Hogg and his
colleagues. Use of words such as "the average age is only 42 years"
points to Paul Cameron. Hogg's paper was valid, although now clearly
out of date and sorely misused -- it requires a considered response.
Cameron's scurrilous work is without any merit, and needs only be
rejected out of hand.)
In the time since the data for Hogg's paper was collected a great deal
has changed around the demographics of the epidemic. For example,
Hogg assumed that 95% of HIV-related deaths were within the homosexual
sub-group; and this has both dramatically fallen over the past 15
years and/or was never applicable in the first instance for areas
outside Vancouver. Likewise, improved health management since the
mid-1990's has considerably extended the average lifespan of HIV-
positive individuals.
This resp[onse updates the work of Hogg and his colleagues using HIV/
AIDS infection data and mortality tables for the 2002/03 period. The
base data is for the entire United States, rather than just the the
city of Vancouver. We have also examined the impact on three racial
sub-groups of gay and bisexual men.
The following table presents both the figures given by Hogg et al in
their 1997 paper (using data from 1987-92) and the comparison figures
calculated using data from 2002-03. As can be seen, the latter
figures present a dramatic improvement in the average life expectancy
of gay and bisexual men when compared to the earlier estimation.
Loss in expectation of life due to HIV/AIDS based upon Gay/
bisexual males as a proportion of the adult male population :
Hogg et al (1994) Vancouver, 1987-92 Revised Figures for
United States 2002-2003
3% - 20.3
years 2.2 years
6% - 11.7
years 1.0 years
9% - 8.0
years 0.7
Using 5.2% as the proportion of adult men that are behaviourally
homosexual, as reported by Laumann et al (1994), the revised
calculations indicate a difference of 1.2 years -- some 14 months --
as the average loss of life expectation for gay and bisexual men when
compared to their heterosexual peers. This is the impact of sexually
acquired HIV.
Loss in expectation of life due to HIV/AIDS.
Gay/Bisexual men at 5.2% of the population.
All races 1.2 years
White 0.9 years
Black 7.7 years
Hispanic 1.9 years Figures calculated from 2002/03 data.
However, as is obvious, the spread of HIV is uneven among gay and
bisexual men; just as it is in the overall male population. In
particular, black Americans have substantially worse outcomes both in
terms of infection rates to begin with and in access to health care
after infection.
At only 12% of the adult male population, black Americans now comprise
half of all new infections. Half of these are heterosexually
transmitted, or as a result of sharing needles during injecting drug
use; but infection rates by male-to-male sexual contact are some 4 to
5 times higher among black gay men when compared to white gay men.
Overall, the infection rate is 7 times higher for black males than for
their white peers. (The difference in rates are even higher between
white and black women).
Having taken the higher risk of infection into account, black
Americans -- both gay and straight -- are further disadvantaged in
life expectancy through having lower average access to medical care
that can prolong life. Looking at a range of 3% to 6% of black men as
gay or bisexual -- a range that can be considered to cover those who
are more than incidentally homosexual -- the figures suggest that
there is a loss of somewhere between 7 to 15 years in average life
expectancy. This compares very unfavourably with white gay men, who
present figures of 1 to 2 years.
Yet, this type of difference is (appallingly) in keeping with average
life expectancies for black straight men and white straight men. For
these two groups the difference is also 7 years (68 years versus 75
years).
The methodology used to prepare this page mirrors that used by Hogg et
al in preparing their paper. However a great deal more information is
now available and this is reflected in what is shown.
1. This response includes data for the entire United States; rather
than the population of Vancouver, Canada.
2. The data used is the most recent publicly available data at June
2005. Due to reporting lags; this data is based on figures for the
2002-03 period. Hogg et al used data from 1987-92.
3. Hogg assumed that 95% of Vancouver's HIV-related deaths were
within the deemed population of gay and bisexual men. This was a
valid assumption in the late 1980's, but even at that time researchers
anticipated that this proportion would fall as this new disease moved
outwards from the groups first affected. An assumption of 95% is
certainly not applicable today.
For the United States as a whole; male-to-male sexual contact
now figures in 45% of HIV-related infections for adult men and
injecting drug use (IDU) by heterosexual males provides a further 31%.
Male-to-Female sexual contact has moved from almost nil in the late
1980's to some 27% today. This single change -- from an assumed 95%,
to the figures now tracked by the CDC -- does have a significant
impact on the overall results.
4. As with Hogg, we have applied the overall life expectancy tables
to all non-HIV related deaths. While this provides a valid method for
examining the impact of HIV/AIDS alone, it does not -- and cannot --
attempt to measure the true average life expectancy of any particular
population group used with those overall life tables.
For that to be done, risk factors other than that of HIV/AIDS
would need to be considered. Unusual circumstances can become
critical when examining small populations of minorities; particularly
for minorities within minorities (such as black gay men).
5. As with Hogg, we can only use data that is currently available.
Deaths from HIV/AIDS reflect infection rates from prior years, rather
than what may be applicable today. For older population cohorts these
figures will be reasonably accurate, but a different regime around the
epidemiology of HIV may be revealed for younger cohorts at some time
in the future. This could have either a positive or negative
influence.
6. Similarly, today's life expectancy data reflects the medical
care that is currently available. It would be valid to assume that
future medical care will prolong the average life expectancy of HIV-
positive people however we have not assumed that in our calculations.
As such, our estimations can be viewed as conservative -- eventual
outcomes may not as severe, particularly for younger age groups.
7. We cannot predict how HIV may evolve as a disease. The virus
may become more or less benign and in turn alter any impact on average
life expectancy.
Dean Turner
of humankind.
duke
wrote:
Oh, noooooooooo. Now she's in alt.bible accusing people of running away from
her.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Budikka666
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:28:28 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> Oh, noooooooooo. Now she's in alt.bible accusing people of running away from
> her.
Here's where you FLED a challenge at least once a month for the last
six months. Staying in
the thread counts for not a thing if all you're doing is RUNNING from
challenges that you
support your bullshit! LoL!
July 12th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/lldf56
August 16th,2009: http://tinyurl.com/kjjmn4
September 10th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/oasqn8
October 3rd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybvtw53
November 9th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yjlmbrf
November 19th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yj64yqj
November 20th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybrkvyh
November 22nd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ycw6s8l
November 25th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ygafw5d
November 29th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yakpje3
November 29th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ygafw5d
December 5th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yzt9f4m
December 7th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yllcb6q
December 8th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybzvv33
December 13th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yakex6v
December 23rd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/y9k8kpv
January 1st, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybnesb2
End of you. Case closed.
Budikka
duke
wrote:
>On Jan 1, 1:00�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:28:28 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Oh, noooooooooo. �Now she's in alt.bible accusing people of running away from
>> her.
>
>Here's where you FLED a challenge at least once a month for the last
>six months. Staying in
>the thread counts for not a thing if all you're doing is RUNNING from
>challenges that you
You and your silly conditions of objective and scientific evidence for Jesus and
God sure turned your posts into silliness.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> You and your silly conditions of objective and scientific evidence for Jesus
> and
> God sure turned your posts into silliness.
The alleged silliness that Duke the puke objects to is miniscule by
comparison to Duke the puke's own sillinesses.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:28:28 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> Oh, noooooooooo. Now she's in alt.bible accusing people of running away from
> her.
Which, like you, they do, ecause they have no satisfactory answers to
her questions
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
Budikka666
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 13:25:43 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 1, 1:00 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:28:28 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> Oh, noooooooooo. Now she's in alt.bible accusing people of running away from
> >> her.
>
> >Here's where you FLED a challenge at least once a month for the last
> >six months. Staying in
> >the thread counts for not a thing if all you're doing is RUNNING from
> >challenges that you
>
> You and your silly conditions of objective and scientific evidence for Jesus and
> God sure turned your posts into silliness.
Thanks for openly admitting, once again in these world-wide public
fora, that your entire life is based on a silly unsupportable myth.
Budikka
duke
wrote:
>On Jan 1, 3:55�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
Not mine, dud, yours.
Budikka666
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 03:44:54 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jan 1, 3:55 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 13:25:43 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jan 1, 1:00 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:28:28 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> Oh, noooooooooo. Now she's in alt.bible accusing people of running away from
> >> >> her.
> >> >Here's where you FLED a challenge at least once a month for the last
> >> >six months. Staying in the thread counts for not a thing if all you're doing is RUNNING from
> >> >challenges that you
> >> You and your silly conditions of objective and scientific evidence for Jesus and
> >> God sure turned your posts into silliness.
> >Thanks for openly admitting, once again in these world-wide public
> >fora, that your entire life is based on a silly unsupportable myth.
> >Budikka
>
> Not mine, dud, yours.
This from the jackass who asserts a god for whom he can't provide a
shred of objective or scientific evidence, a divine creation for which
he can't provide a shred of objective or scientific evidence, a flood
which the Bible LIES took place some 4,500 years ago and involved
humans but which Dumb-Ass Duck-Egg here insists could have taken place
at any time within the last 4.5 billion years and then RUNS whenever
he's challenged to support *that* claim!
You really are far too stupid.
But let;s get back to the question you're currently FLEEING, shall we?
You claim that Genesis 1 - 11 is prehistoric, but the rest of the
Bible from Genesis 12 onwards being historic. Every time you're
challenged to support this claim, YOU RUN AWAY.
I know you're aware - since I directly told you on more than one
occasion - that the earliest Bible texts have no chapters or verses,
but were written as one continuous unbroken story, so right out of the
gate, your claim about there being some sort of barrier between
Genesis 11 - 12 is purest bullshit. The Bible contains no such break,
barrier, bridge or impediment.
Now here's the question from which you're currently RUNNING: Genesis
11's last verse mentions Abram's father. Since it's in chapter 11, is
Abram's father prehistoric or not? Did he really exist or not? If he
didn't exist, then how come Abram got born? If he really existed,
then he's not prehistoric, he's a real person. Got it now jackass?
It's a perfectly simple question. Answer it.
Budikka
Syd M.
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 03:44:54 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jan 1, 3:55 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 13:25:43 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jan 1, 1:00 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:28:28 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> Oh, noooooooooo. Now she's in alt.bible accusing people of running away from
> >> >> her.
> >> >Here's where you FLED a challenge at least once a month for the last
> >> >six months. Staying in the thread counts for not a thing if all you're doing is RUNNING from
> >> >challenges that you
> >> You and your silly conditions of objective and scientific evidence for Jesus and
> >> God sure turned your posts into silliness.
> >Thanks for openly admitting, once again in these world-wide public
> >fora, that your entire life is based on a silly unsupportable myth.
> >Budikka
>
> Not mine, dud, yours.
>
>
Another day, another lie.
PDW
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
In your dreams, Puke,
We agnostic atheists are the ones that reject all those unsupportable
myths as being unsupportable.
Note that we agnostic atheists do not say that no gods exist, we merely
do not believe in any of them.
And since the evidence favoring any one of them is no more convincing to
us than the evidence for any other god, the only RATIONAL alternative to
our uniform non-belief would be to accept ALL gods as existing.
And we are not Puke's real enemy, his real enemies are all those who
believe in gods incompatible with Puke's.
duke
wrote:
>> Not mine, dud, yours.
>This from the jackass who asserts a god for whom he can't provide a
>shred of objective or scientific evidence
The evidence is overwhelming. No person of intelligence would turn away.
>But let;s get back to the question you're currently FLEEING, shall we?
>
>You claim that Genesis 1 - 11 is prehistoric
No, the experts say that.
>, but the rest of the
>Bible from Genesis 12 onwards being historic. Every time you're
>challenged to support this claim, YOU RUN AWAY.
I'm still here.
>I know you're aware - since I directly told you on more than one
>occasion - that the earliest Bible texts have no chapters or verses,
>but were written as one continuous unbroken story
I believe that it was I that pointed something of that nature to you.
>Now here's the question from which you're currently RUNNING:
You can't use unscientific evidence to prove a scientific point, dummy.
Budikka666
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 12:42:22 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Not mine, dud, yours.
> >This from the jackass who asserts a god for whom he can't provide a
> >shred of objective or scientific evidence
>
> The evidence is overwhelming. No person of intelligence would turn away.
It's quite obviously overwhelmed you, which more than adequately
explains why you RUN AWAY FROM ME every single time I ask you to
present this objective evidence for your god. Thanks for openly
admitting in these public fora that you're nothing but LYING SCUM and
that you do not have, never have had, and never will have an iota of
objective evidence to offer for this god of yours, for this creation
you claim, for this flood you claim, or for this Jesus Christ, miracle-
working son of a god you claim.
> >But let's get back to the question you're currently FLEEING, shall we?
>
> >You claim that Genesis 1 - 11 is prehistoric
>
> No, the experts say that.
No, LIAR. **YOU** have said that right here in these news groups. Do
you want me to provide a URL to every instance where you've stated
this? Now I'm asking **YOU** to support **YOUR** statement and here
**YOU** are RUNNING AWAY like you do EVERY SINGLE TIME I ask you to
support one of your claims. **YOU** have said that the experts say
that, but you've never once, as usual, supported your bullshit.
**YOU** have made the claim, I've called **YOU** out on it, and here
**YOU** are RUNNING from it! Nothing new there.
> >, but the rest of the
> >Bible from Genesis 12 onwards being historic. Every time you're
> >challenged to support this claim, YOU RUN AWAY.
>
> I'm still here.
You're still here in the thread, but you're RUNNING from the challenge
like you do from every single challenge I put before you, you pathetic
LYING coward. You'd think after the number of times I've spelled out
*that* subtle distinction that even someone of your desolate and
depleted mentality would have grasped it, but even my deliberately
lowered expectations are quite evidently way to high for someone of
your ilk to meet.
> >I know you're aware - since I directly told you on more than one
> >occasion - that the earliest Bible texts have no chapters or verses,
> >but were written as one continuous unbroken story
>
> I believe that it was I that pointed something of that nature to you.
No, I pointed it out to you, many times, once each for every time
you've RUN from it which again begs the question from which you're
RUNNING as fast as your skinny white chicken legs can propel you: what
is it which makes what you call Genesis chapter 11 verse 32
"prehistory", and the *very* *next* *sentence* "history" according to
**YOUR** stated claim?
You can either step up to the plate and do as your LORD commanded you
and give a straight answer, or you can continue RUNNING from that
challenge like you've been RUNNING from it every single time I've
asked it, for many, many, many months now. Your choice.
> >Now here's the question from which you're currently RUNNING:
>
> You can't use unscientific evidence to prove a scientific point, dummy.
Thanks for proving once and for all, beyond even your weaseling
excuses, that you have snipped and RUN like the pathetic scum you are,
and here's the question Chicken Duke is RUNNING from because he's a
pathetic piece of trash, folks: Genesis 11:32 mentions Abram's
father. Since it's in chapter 11, is Abram's father prehistoric or
not? Did he really exist or not? If he didn't exist, then how come
Abram got born? If Abram is a real person because he's mentioned in
the Bible, then how can his father, also mentioned in the Bible
*immediately before* Abram, be fiction? Got it now jackass?
Regardless of whether the Bible is scientific or not, regardless of
whether the Bible is historical or not, regardless of whether the
Bible tells the truth or not, *this* *is* *what* *the* *Bible*
*says*! Genesis chapter 11 verse 32 specifically states that Terah is
Abram's father. You've stated that Abram was an historical person.
How can he be historical and his father Terah fictional?
It's a perfectly simply question which no one who had anything to hide
would be able to answer without hesitation. Why is Chicken Duke
RUNNING every time I ask this perfectly reasonable, perfectly simple
question?
What does Chicken Duke have to hide? The fact that he's a
pathetically transparent cowardly LIAR? The fact that he knows as
well as everyone else reading this knows: that he's once again dug
himself into a hole out of which even a lame weasel like Duke cannot
squirm?
Budikka
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 12:42:22 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Not mine, dud, yours.
>
> >This from the jackass who asserts a god for whom he can't provide a
> >shred of objective or scientific evidence
>
> The evidence is overwhelming. No person of intelligence would turn away.
There are hundreds of mutually incomaptible christian and
quasi-christian sects of which yours is merely one, and there are
hundreds of equally incompatible non-christian theist religions, and
each one claims that it is the one and only true religion.
But, at least as of yet, none of them can prove that they and only they
are the true religion and that all the others are fake.
And until one of them does, sensible people will choose not to accept
any of them.
But there are some non-theist religions , e.g., Buddhism, that a
sensible person might find beneficial.
> You can't use unscientific evidence to prove a scientific point, dummy.
If it really is evidence, it can be used to prove SOMETHING.In article
<da5b25cb-e210-40f1...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...an alternative to traditional religion by the Humanist chaplain at
> Harvard University
>
> With the current state of the economy, the ongoing wars that rage
> across the globe, and the unsettling changes to the earth's climate,
> questions about the role of God and religion in world affairs have
> never been more relevant or felt more powerfully. Many of us are
> searching for a place where we can find not only facts and scientific
> reason but also hope and the moral courage needed to overcome such
> challenges. For some, answers to the most challenging questions are
> found in the divine. For others, including the New Atheists, religion
> has no place in the world and is, in fact, an "enemy."
>
> But in Good Without God, Greg Epstein presents another, more balanced
> and inclusive response: Humanism. With a focus on the positive, he
> highlights humanity's potential for goodness and the ways in which
> Humanists lead lives of purpose and compassion. Humanism can offer the
> sense of community we want and often need in good times and bad, as we
> celebrate marriages and the birth of our children, and as we care for
> those who are elderly or sick. In short, Humanism teaches us that we
> can lead good and moral lives without supernaturalism, without higher
> powers . . . without God.
>
> In this constructive response not only to his fellow atheists Richard
> Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris but also to contemporary
> religious leaders such as Rick Warren and Jim Wallis, Epstein makes a
> bold claim for what nonbelievers do share and believe. At a time when
> the debate about morality rages more fiercely than ever--and when
> millions are searching for something they can put their faith in--
> Humanism offers a comfort and hope that affirms our ability to live
> ethical lives of personal fulfillment, aspiring together for the
> greater good of all.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Good-Without-God-Billion-Nonreligious/dp/0061670111
Syd M.
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 12:42:22 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Not mine, dud, yours.
> >This from the jackass who asserts a god for whom he can't provide a
> >shred of objective or scientific evidence
>
> The evidence is overwhelming. No person of intelligence would turn away.
>
And yet, you consistantly refuse to post this 'evidence.'
> >But let;s get back to the question you're currently FLEEING, shall we?
>
> >You claim that Genesis 1 - 11 is prehistoric
>
> No, the experts say that.
>
> >, but the rest of the
> >Bible from Genesis 12 onwards being historic. Every time you're
> >challenged to support this claim, YOU RUN AWAY.
>
> I'm still here.
>
Nope.
> >I know you're aware - since I directly told you on more than one
> >occasion - that the earliest Bible texts have no chapters or verses,
> >but were written as one continuous unbroken story
>
> I believe that it was I that pointed something of that nature to you.
>
> >Now here's the question from which you're currently RUNNING:
>
> You can't use unscientific evidence to prove a scientific point, dummy.
>
>
But you try to do it anyway.
PDW
Mike Painter
<snip>
>>
>> You can't use unscientific evidence to prove a scientific point,
>> dummy.
>>
>>
>
> But you try to do it anyway.
>
> PDW
This "proof" from him is one of my favorites.
He went on for days defending "body salinity (same as ocean water)" and
based it all on one quote from the salt institute.
"Medical science itself professes the human body to reflect a "design with
purpose". It consists of a central computer (brain) supported by a fluid
transfer system (blood) forced along by a pump (heart), an energy conversion
system (stomach and intestines), a waste disposal system, an oxygen transfer
system (lungs) that is required to transfer necessary oxygen to the brain
and to the body parts, maintenance organs (spleen, gall bladder, etc), and a
body salinity (same as ocean water) exactly correct as necessary for
transfer of minute electrical signals to/from the brain to operate and
control the body."
(claimed copyright by Duke, probably plagerized)
Again I point out that the blood is not a fluid transfer system. The
circulatory system is the fluid transfer system and blood in the fluid that
is transferred.
The stomach and intestines are not energy conversion units they are exchange
systems. The difference between the two concepts would be known to an
engineer.
The lungs are not an oxygen transfer system, they are a gas exchange system.
The blood does the transfer. If they just exchanged oxygen life would not
exist as we know it. They exchange all gasses, which is an example of crappy
design. They should just exchange CO2 and O2 blocking the rest.
Body salinity varies and in general is not the same as sea water. The
salinity
of blood is 0.9% ,average salinity of the ocean is 3.5% and varies from
ocean to ocean.
"exactly correct" shows a lack of knowledge about transmission of
electricity and the whole phrase seems to ignore the chemical side of such
transmissions and imply a different method of transmitting information to
and from the brain.
5/17/06 If Earl's idea was right it would mean we could drink seawater in
any amount with no harm to our system. In fact drinking to much will lead to
death.
5/18/06 Even if we assumed that blood was the same salinity as the ocean and
this was "just right" for transmitting current. It would still be
*COMPLETELY WRONG*. Blood does not transmit nerve signals. If it did then
nature would have invented TCP/IP a long time ago, our reflexes would be
orders of magnitude better and each individual organ would be part of a WiFi
network. These signals however are sent over specific nerves to specific
spots. The brain is more a POTS (Plain Old Telephone System) CO (Central
Office) and Earl's god never did learn about twisted pair. Cross talk is the
bane of medicine because a hurt "here" can mean something wrong way over
"there".
duke
wrote:
>On Jan 3, 5:02�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 12:42:22 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Not mine, dud, yours.
>> >This from the jackass who asserts a god for whom he can't provide a
>> >shred of objective or scientific evidence
>>
>> The evidence is overwhelming. �No person of intelligence would turn away.
>
>It's quite obviously overwhelmed you, which more than adequately
>explains why you RUN AWAY FROM ME every single time I ask you to
>present this objective evidence for your god.
Nope, you are not bright enough to overwhelm me as is obvious the way I kick
your ass.
> Thanks for openly
>admitting in these public fora that you're nothing but LYING SCUM and
>that you do not have, never have had, and never will have an iota of
>objective evidence to offer for this god of yours, for this creation
>you claim, for this flood you claim, or for this Jesus Christ, miracle-
>working son of a god you claim.
Heeheeheeheehe.
>> >But let's get back to the question you're currently FLEEING, shall we?
>> >You claim that Genesis 1 - 11 is prehistoric
>> No, the experts say that.
>No, LIAR. **YOU** have said that right here in these news groups.
NO, the experts said that. And I told you that before that it was not
scientific but instead a faith statement.
> Do
>you want me to provide a URL to every instance where you've stated
>this? Now I'm asking **YOU** to support **YOUR** statement and here
>**YOU** are RUNNING AWAY like you do EVERY SINGLE TIME I ask you to
>support one of your claims. **YOU** have said that the experts say
>that, but you've never once, as usual, supported your bullshit.
>**YOU** have made the claim, I've called **YOU** out on it, and here
>**YOU** are RUNNING from it! Nothing new there.
Hey, if you can't float your boat, cry.
>> >, but the rest of the
>> >Bible from Genesis 12 onwards being historic. �Every time you're
>> >challenged to support this claim, YOU RUN AWAY.
>>
>> I'm still here.
>You're still here in the thread, but you're RUNNING
But dud, I'm still here kicking your ass on a daily basis.
> from the challenge
>like you do from every single challenge I put before you, you pathetic
>LYING coward. You'd think after the number of times I've spelled out
>*that* subtle distinction that even someone of your desolate and
>depleted mentality would have grasped it, but even my deliberately
>lowered expectations are quite evidently way to high for someone of
>your ilk to meet.
>
>> >I know you're aware - since I directly told you on more than one
>> >occasion - that the earliest Bible texts have no chapters or verses,
>> >but were written as one continuous unbroken story
>>
>> I believe that it was I that pointed something of that nature to you.
>No, I pointed it out to you, many times, once each for every time
>you've RUN from it
And I've said the same thing from my own research.
> which again begs the question from which you're
>RUNNING as fast as your skinny white chicken legs can propel you: what
>is it which makes what you call Genesis chapter 11 verse 32
>"prehistory", and the *very* *next* *sentence* "history" according to
>**YOUR** stated claim?
>You can either step up to the plate and do as your LORD commanded you
>and give a straight answer,
You got a straight answer; you're trying to bend the truth.
Nothing, not a thing.
> The fact that he's a
>pathetically transparent cowardly LIAR? The fact that he knows as
>well as everyone else reading this knows: that he's once again dug
>himself into a hole out of which even a lame weasel like Duke cannot
>squirm?
>
>Budikka
The Dukester, American-American
duke
>In article <6b82k5hjjclmorjsa...@4ax.com>,
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 12:42:22 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Not mine, dud, yours.
>>
>> >This from the jackass who asserts a god for whom he can't provide a
>> >shred of objective or scientific evidence
>>
>> The evidence is overwhelming. No person of intelligence would turn away.
>
>There are hundreds of mutually incomaptible christian and
>quasi-christian sects of which yours is merely one, and there are
>hundreds of equally incompatible non-christian theist religions, and
>each one claims that it is the one and only true religion.
Actually no they don't. The protest_ants try but then show that they reject
most of what God told us in the NT. So that's that.
>But, at least as of yet, none of them can prove that they and only they
>are the true religion and that all the others are fake.
We Catholics can.
>And until one of them does, sensible people will choose not to accept
>any of them.
Or instead just gigantic assholes.
>But there are some non-theist religions , e.g., Buddhism, that a
>sensible person might find beneficial.
Just as long as you don't want to believe in God.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 20:49:34 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
> >In article <6b82k5hjjclmorjsa...@4ax.com>,
> > duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 12:42:22 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Not mine, dud, yours.
> >>
> >> >This from the jackass who asserts a god for whom he can't provide a
> >> >shred of objective or scientific evidence
> >>
> >> The evidence is overwhelming. No person of intelligence would turn away.
> >
> >There are hundreds of mutually incomaptible christian and
> >quasi-christian sects of which yours is merely one, and there are
> >hundreds of equally incompatible non-christian theist religions, and
> >each one claims that it is the one and only true religion.
>
> Actually no they don't. The protest_ants try but then show that they reject
> most of what God told us in the NT. So that's that.
>
> >But, at least as of yet, none of them can prove that they and only they
> >are the true religion and that all the others are fake.
>
> We Catholics can.
You keep claiming so, but if it were true, Luther would have failed to
split off and Mohammed would have failed too.
>
> >And until one of them does, sensible people will choose not to accept
> >any of them.
>
> Or instead just gigantic assholes.
You guys have a lot of those among you.
>
> >But there are some non-theist religions , e.g., Buddhism, that a
> >sensible person might find beneficial.
>
> Just as long as you don't want to believe in God.
There are too many gods to choose from, and none of them have
satisfactorily managed prove those others do not exist.
And too many sects to choose from within the compass of any alleged god.
And each claims that it, and only it, is right.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> Heeheeheeheehe.
Puke gives way to hysteria once again.
Budikka666
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 17:45:46 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 3, 5:02 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 12:42:22 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> Not mine, dud, yours.
> >> >This from the jackass who asserts a god for whom he can't provide a
> >> >shred of objective or scientific evidence
>
> >> The evidence is overwhelming. No person of intelligence would turn away.
>
> >It's quite obviously overwhelmed you, which more than adequately
> >explains why you RUN AWAY FROM ME every single time I ask you to
> >present this objective evidence for your god.
>
> Nope, you are not bright enough to overwhelm me as is obvious the way I kick
> your ass.
How, exactly, are you kicking my ass when you're RUNNING as fast as
you can from every challenge I set you, you pathetic LIAR? You're
running right here. Anyone who wasn't a LYING PILE OF PIG SHIT like
you would have answered these questions months ago. Yet here are you
STILL RUNNING! LoL!
Did you think that by LYING you could distract people from the fact
that *once* *again* you've FLED my challenge that you support your
assertions with objective evidence like the dickless coward you are?
No one else on the entire Usenet is a dumb as you, boy. You're the
*only* one you're fooling with your smokescreens and straw men.
> > Thanks for openly
> >admitting in these public fora that you're nothing but LYING SCUM and
> >that you do not have, never have had, and never will have an iota of
> >objective evidence to offer for this god of yours, for this creation
> >you claim, for this flood you claim, or for this Jesus Christ, miracle-
> >working son of a god you claim.
>
> Heeheeheeheehe.
Did you think that by cackling like the demented waste of skin you are
that you could distract people from the fact that *once* *again*
you've FLED my challenge that you support your assertions with
objective evidence like the Pig Shit you are? No one else on the
entire Usenet is a dumb as you, boy.
> >> >But let's get back to the question you're currently FLEEING, shall we?
> >> >You claim that Genesis 1 - 11 is prehistoric
> >> No, the experts say that.
> >No, LIAR. **YOU** have said that right here in these news groups.
>
> NO, the experts said that. And I told you that before that it was not
> scientific but instead a faith statement.
Once again you LIE. **YOU** said that. You haven't presented even
***ONE*** expert yet you LYING PILE OF PIG SHIT. **YOU** said it and
now you're too much of a lame chicken to even admit to it. Instead
you're researching how you can run even faster from me next time I get
in your dumb, slack-jawed, drooling face. LoL!
> > Do
> >you want me to provide a URL to every instance where you've stated
> >this? Now I'm asking **YOU** to support **YOUR** statement and here
> >**YOU** are RUNNING AWAY like you do EVERY SINGLE TIME I ask you to
> >support one of your claims. **YOU** have said that the experts say
> >that, but you've never once, as usual, supported your bullshit.
> >**YOU** have made the claim, I've called **YOU** out on it, and here
> >**YOU** are RUNNING from it! Nothing new there.
>
> Hey, if you can't float your boat, cry.
>
> >> >, but the rest of the
> >> >Bible from Genesis 12 onwards being historic. Every time you're
> >> >challenged to support this claim, YOU RUN AWAY.
>
> >> I'm still here.
> >You're still here in the thread, but you're RUNNING
>
> But dud, I'm still here kicking your ass on a daily basis.
No one has ever seen that. What everyone on Usenet has seen, every
time I challenge you, AS THEY SEE RIGHT HERE IN THIS non-RESPONSE OF
YOURS, is you LYING and RUNNING.
> > from the challenge
> >like you do from every single challenge I put before you, you pathetic
> >LYING coward. You'd think after the number of times I've spelled out
> >*that* subtle distinction that even someone of your desolate and
> >depleted mentality would have grasped it, but even my deliberately
> >lowered expectations are quite evidently way to high for someone of
> >your ilk to meet.
>
> >> >I know you're aware - since I directly told you on more than one
> >> >occasion - that the earliest Bible texts have no chapters or verses,
> >> >but were written as one continuous unbroken story
>
> >> I believe that it was I that pointed something of that nature to you.
> >No, I pointed it out to you, many times, once each for every time
> >you've RUN from it
>
> And I've said the same thing from my own research.
The only research you've ever done is how to run from me even faster
than you do already you LYING TRASH.
> > which again begs the question from which you're
> >RUNNING as fast as your skinny white chicken legs can propel you: what
> >is it which makes what you call Genesis chapter 11 verse 32
> >"prehistory", and the *very* *next* *sentence* "history" according to
> >**YOUR** stated claim?
> >You can either step up to the plate and do as your LORD commanded you
> >and give a straight answer,
>
> You got a straight answer; you're trying to bend the truth.
Like you have the first clue what "truth" is! LoL! Do you have any
idea how many Usenet users are laughing their asses off at you right
this minute Pig Shit?
> > or you can continue RUNNING from that
> >challenge like you've been RUNNING from it every single time I've
> >asked it, for many, many, many months now. Your choice.
>
> >> >Now here's the question from which you're currently RUNNING:
>
> >> You can't use unscientific evidence to prove a scientific point, dummy.
Once again you snipped the question and RAN from it. It really
terrifies you, the truth, doesn't it? You're scared to death of
reality. There's probably a medical term for your condition. I'll
look it up for you. For now let's call it realiphobia. That's what
you have. realiphobia - you are so terrified of the truth that you
knee-jerk snip it out of a message rather than even so much as
acknowledge that it's there. Truth will do that to LYING Pig Shit.
> >Thanks for proving once and for all, beyond even your weaseling
> >excuses, that you have snipped and RUN like the pathetic scum you are,
> >and here's the question Chicken Duke is RUNNING from because he's a
> >pathetic piece of trash, folks: Genesis 11:32 mentions Abram's
> >father. Since it's in chapter 11, is Abram's father prehistoric or
> >not? Did he really exist or not? If he didn't exist, then how come
> >Abram got born? If Abram is a real person because he's mentioned in
> >the Bible, then how can his father, also mentioned in the Bible
> >*immediately before* Abram, be fiction? Got it now jackass?
>
> >Regardless of whether the Bible is scientific or not, regardless of
> >whether the Bible is historical or not, regardless of whether the
> >Bible tells the truth or not, *this* *is* *what* *the* *Bible*
> >*says*! Genesis chapter 11 verse 32 specifically states that Terah is
> >Abram's father. You've stated that Abram was an historical person.
> >How can he be historical and his father Terah fictional?
>
> >It's a perfectly simply question which no one who had anything to hide
> >would be able to answer without hesitation. Why is Chicken Duke
> >RUNNING every time I ask this perfectly reasonable, perfectly simple
> >question?
> >What does Chicken Duke have to hide?
>
> Nothing, not a thing.
Yet here you are RUNNING still like the pile of festering stinking
worthless PIG SHIT you are. LoL!
End of story, End of you.
Syd M.
Man... Dork is an imbecille, huh?
But, he'll just come back and arrogantly claim to have 'kicked
everyone's ass' regarding this exchange, and smugly and loudly
continue to proclaim no matter what.
He is that stupid.
PDW
Syd M.
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 17:45:46 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 3, 5:02 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 12:42:22 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> Not mine, dud, yours.
> >> >This from the jackass who asserts a god for whom he can't provide a
> >> >shred of objective or scientific evidence
>
> >> The evidence is overwhelming. No person of intelligence would turn away.
>
> >It's quite obviously overwhelmed you, which more than adequately
> >explains why you RUN AWAY FROM ME every single time I ask you to
> >present this objective evidence for your god.
>
> Nope, you are not bright enough to overwhelm me as is obvious the way I kick
> your ass.
>
Stop projecting, Dork.
The only one getting their ass kicked in this thread is you.
PDW
CB
"Dean Turner" <deantu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:28818-4B3...@baytvnwsxa002.msntv.msn.com...
> Typical right-winged garbage and RRR-cultists. They are among the scum
> of humankind.
>
Goo goo duh Baal?
duke
wrote:
>> Nope, you are not bright enough to overwhelm me as is obvious the way I kick
>> your ass. �
>How, exactly, are you kicking my ass when you're RUNNING as fast as
>you can from every challenge I set you, you pathetic LIAR?
By restricting you from using unscientific information to establish a scientific
fact.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 13:55:45 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Nope, you are not bright enough to overwhelm me as is obvious the way I
> >> kick
> >> your ass. �
>
> >How, exactly, are you kicking my ass when you're RUNNING as fast as
> >you can from every challenge I set you, you pathetic LIAR?
>
> By restricting you from using unscientific information to establish a
> scientific
> fact.
The FACT that there are false statements in that part of the Bible which
Puke concedes is unscientific has been established.
The claim that there are parts of the bible containing true statements
has not been established.
hypa...@comcast.net
> http://www.egalitarian.biz/Preterism-Refuted.html
>
> The second-most facinating aspect of Bible prophecy is its utter
> inerrancy, inexorability, and inevatability. If it's prophetic,
> and it's in the Bible, then it either already has happened, or
> it darned well will happen -- no if, ands, or buts.
>
> Hey Craig!
>
> The Bible says faggots are going to die and be sent to burn in
> hell.
Why are religious morons like you posting your poison
in alt.atheism? All you do is make enemies. So much
for Christian 'love'.
duke
>And each claims that it, and only it, is right.
Stick with Jesus in scripture, and we have no problems.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
PHONY-Pastor Dave <newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> SUBMORON, BILL TAYLORE (aka)"leroy blue"<lero...@billon.net>...
...mad a fool of himself. Afgain. As usual.
<flush>
> And yet, Craig says there's nothing wrong with
> homosexual acts.
Bacause there ISNT. "Duh!!" See:
http://www.ChristianEgalitarian.com/Erroneous-Hate.html
> I get it.
LOL!!! As usual, YOU don't get DIDDLY, PHONY-Pastor.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Homophobic TROGLODYTES are on their way OUT!
The Gay Rights movement isn't going away. Society will continue to
evolve, and eventually people will look back on discrimination against
gays the way we look back on discrimination against blacks and women,
and wonder how people could ever have been such troglodytes.
--Mark A., 12-3-09
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
��� Rest in Peace ���
��� George Richard Tiller, MD ���
��� A True American HERO! ���
��� August 8, 1941 � May 31, 2009 ���
��� Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com ���
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Bigotry
www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
www.TravelForPay.org -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL!
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
SUBMORON, BILL TAYLOR (aka "leroy blue") <lero...@billon.net> wrote:
>http://www.ChristianEgalitarian.com/Preterism-Refuted.html
>
> The second-most facinating aspect of Bible prophecy is its utter
> inerrancy, inexorability, and inevatability. If it's prophetic,
> and it's in the Bible, then it either already has happened, or
> it darned well will happen -- no if, ands, or buts.
Your obvious INABILTY to read the above-linked article
with comprehension is duly noted, Dolt.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The PROVEN Dishonesty of Bill Taylor
(As compiled by the poster going by "No One.")
"Leroyblue", aka "bibon," aka Bill Taylor is a bigot who posts regularly
on a variety of newsgroups, and is noted for his lack of manners, his
hatred, his dishonesty, and a characteristic redneck patois that
creeps in every so often. Of course, he denies his real identity (and
the large number of aliases he's used). Since "leroyblue" is simply
his latest identity, most of his real gems will appaer under his
"bibon" and former identities.
This guy is completely shameless. In a post with message ID:
<news:ustel318uigdheu19...@4ax.com>, he fal-
sified a citation - a reply to his statement showed how (see the post
with Message ID <news:87r6i0m...@nospam.pacbell.net> for
the details).
See Message-ID:
<news:n5tn72l8p74cfv8vc...@4ax.com> for a
post in which bibon accidentally identified himself as Bill Taylor and
Message ID <news:m3d5dvp...@nospam.pacbell.net> for
details about how he identified himself. Basically, he claimed that
"Bill Taylor" never received a phone call from some individual, some-
thing only "Bill Taylor" could know, with the phone number in ques-
tion belonging to "our" "Bill Taylor". Others, of course, have
reached the same conclusion.
The really interesting question is why he is so sensitive about "Bill
Taylor" so much more so than all his other numerous identities. :-)
Some of his rantings are just comical. For example, in Message ID:
<news:2iell25bqiqgv16ir...@4ax.com>, one of Bill
Taylor's aliases "bi...@ralent.org (with a '^' over the 'a') posted an
inadvertent admission that he is gay enough to hire a male prostitute
(whether or not he intended to say that).
However, he's shown his dishonesty time and time again. For one
example, in Message ID
<news:skmio2d2lukbv2gkt...@4ax.com>, Bill Taylor
(aka bibon) was caught forging headers,changing "LC" to "LA" and "LB"
in headers he cut and pasted to pretend that "LC" was posting under
multiple identities. You can cross check this claim by using Google
to search for the message IDs. LC's post with Message ID:
<news:embji...@enews1.newsguy.com> was attributed by Bill
Taylor to "LA" (but Taylor suppressed part of the message ID by
giving it as <news:embjhn02...@enews1.newsguy.com> to make
tracing it difficult).
He also doesn't learn even when called on his behavior. In Message
ID <news:016tu2d0ksk24dsuc...@4ax.com>, bibon
(aka Bill Taylor) pretends a phrase in quotes was written in
<news:87ps7kj...@nospam.pacbell.net> yet it does not appear
there (<news:87ps7kj...@nospam.pacbell.net> is the message
ID of the post that he was responding to, as is clear from the headers
for his post). In message ID:
<news:dp22v21m779nvfjdc...@4ax.com> he tried
to cover it up by claiming it wasa "mistake", even though the "mistake"
occurred in quoted text (lines starting with '>') that were automatically
inserted by his newsreader. His claim of a "mistake" is as believable
as "my dog ate my homework". Then in a post with message ID:
<news:s4d4v29mamrmrstji...@4ax.com>, he tried to
pretend that he had merely snipped a post incorrectly, even though
the text in question never was in the one he quoted.
Such behavior gives zero credibility to any statment Bill Taylor (aka
bibon, aka ...) makes. You really have to wonder about someone
whowould post such a lie when it is so easily checked: just go to
<news:http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&> and copy
a message ID (do not include the '<' and '>') in the search string at
the bottom of the page, and click the "Lookup Message" button to
find an original post.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Bill Taylor
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <wwwawegwergwedy.com>" <x...@m.com>
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:20:42 +0100,
> SUBMORON, BILL TAYLOR (aka "leroy blue") <lero...@billon.net> wrote:
>
> >http://www.ChristianEgalitarian.com/Preterism-Refuted.html
> >
> > The second-most facinating aspect of Bible prophecy is its utter
> > inerrancy, inexorability, and inevatability. If it's prophetic,
> > and it's in the Bible, then it either already has happened, or
> > it darned well will happen -- no if, ands, or buts.
>
> Your obvious INABILTY to read the above-linked article
> with comprehension is duly noted, Dolt.
>
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
> The PROVEN Dishonesty of Bill Taylor
> (As compiled by the poster going by "No One.")
>
Was "No One's" death painful when he died of AIDS? Or was it an
incurable staph infection from his many unprotected anal
invasions?
Bill Taylor
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <wwwqwe4tqwetwy.com>" <x...@m.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:13:04 -0500,
> PHONY-Pastor Dave <newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > SUBMORON, BILL TAYLORE (aka)"leroy blue"<lero...@billon.net>...
>
> ...mad a fool of himself. Afgain. As usual.
>
> <flush>
>
> > And yet, Craig says there's nothing wrong with
> > homosexual acts.
>
> Bacause there ISNT. "Duh!!" See:
>
> http://www.ChristianEgalitarian.com/Erroneous-Hate.html
So you have no problem with a 50 year old queer pounding one of
your 10 year old nephews up the butt?
Glad we got that cleared up.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
PHONY- Pastor Dave <newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Craig says there's nothing wrong with homosexual acts.
Because there ISN'T. Get a life, noronic bigot.
> I get it.
The only thing YOU ever "get," PHONY-pastor, is how to
be very expert at being a total ignoramus and bigot.
And most REAL pastors would laugh you out of town.
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
PHONY- Pastor Dave <newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Craig says there's nothing wrong with homosexual acts.
Because FUCKING MAIN VEIN! there ISN'T. FUCKING ARSE-BANDIT!
FREAKY-CUM-GIRL! Get a life, FUCKING BOWEL! noronic bigot. SHITFIRE!
DROOPERS! CERVIX CRUSADER! ARSE BANDIT!
> I get it.
The FUCKING BEARDED OYSTER! ASSHOLE BANDIT! FUCK ASS! SHIT HEAD!
APPLE-JOHN! ASS-WEDGE! CERVIX CRUSADER! BLACK LIMO! POO! FESTERED
SORE! BLOOD SPORTS! only thing YOU ever FUCKING EASY-PICK-UP! ASS! ASS
BUSINESS! BUTT RAPE! BOSOMS! CAMEL RIDER! BITCHERY! "get,"
PHONY-pastor, is how FUCKING ARSEWIPE! to be very expert FUCKING
EASY-PICK-UP! BACK-DOOR BUDDY! FLESH MAGGOT! LOVE WEASEL! BOUNCERS!
DICK OF DEATH! DUODENUM! at being a total FUCKING PISSER! ANAL JOB!
ignoramus and bigot. BACK-DOOR MAN! LOVE TOOL! BITS AND PIECES! JACK
OFF!
And FUCKING BREASTIES! CHODE! most REAL pastors would FUCKING FUCK UP!
LOVE LOG! laugh you out of FUCKING ASS-KISSER! BLOW POP! town. NIPPLE!
BED PISSER! HYMEN!
Bill Taylor
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.qwertwertwom>" <x...@m.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:13:04 -0500,
> PHONY- Pastor Dave <newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Craig says there's nothing wrong with homosexual acts.
>
> Because there ISN'T. Get a life, noronic bigot.
What did you do about your sore butthole? Increase lube?
Reduce frequency?
> > I get it.
>
> The only thing YOU ever "get," PHONY-pastor, is how to
> be very expert at being a total ignoramus and bigot.
>
> And most REAL pastors would laugh you out of town.
You not being one of them since you got kicked out of seminary.