Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Anyone want to play "poke the creationist"?

2 views
Skip to first unread message

TheBicyclingGuitarist

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 4:01:12 AM12/12/09
to
Hello everybody! For several months I have been engaged off and on in
debate with a fundie Christian creationist on "A Different Kind of
Blog", so-called because this blog has multiple authors of differing
political and religious viewpoints.

As happens here, there as well sometimes the topic changes during the
course of discussion, sometimes changes subject again, sometimes
changes back to the original topic, sometimes not. Anyway, at least
one of the editors became annoyed recently that this fundie
creationist and I hijacked a thread and turned it into creation v.
evolution. His solution was to post a new thread just for us to fight
it out!

Anyone can post to this blog. I invite even the wacko nutjob
creationist regulars here to join in. Of course I would be most
honored to hear some feedback on my reasoning and arguments used in my
comments in that thread.

The thread in question can be found at
http://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/obamas-possible-reaction-to-his-election-and-nobel-peace-prize/

enjoy!

bobsyo...@yahoo.com

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 5:56:16 AM12/12/09
to
Depends.

How sharp is the stick?

Nashton

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 7:11:15 AM12/12/09
to


Hey flunker, did you write this:

"The point is that we are temporary local patterns of energy, but the
energy is eternal."

All-seeing-I

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 7:30:54 AM12/12/09
to
On Dec 12, 6:11�am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
> > Hello everybody! For several months I have been engaged off and on in
> > debate with a fundie Christian creationist on "A Different Kind of
> > Blog", so-called because this blog has multiple authors of differing
> > political and religious viewpoints.
>
> > As happens here, there as well sometimes the topic changes during the
> > course of discussion, sometimes changes subject again, sometimes
> > changes back to the original topic, sometimes not. Anyway, at least
> > one of the editors became annoyed recently that this fundie
> > creationist and I hijacked a thread and turned it into creation v.
> > evolution. His solution was to post a new thread just for us to fight
> > it out!
>
> > Anyone can post to this blog. I invite even the wacko nutjob
> > creationist regulars here to join in. Of course I would be most
> > honored to hear some feedback on my reasoning and arguments used in my
> > comments in that thread.
>
> > The thread in question can be found at
> >http://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/obamas-possible-reaction-to...

>
> > enjoy!
>
> Hey flunker, did you write this:
>
> "The point is that we are temporary local patterns of energy, but the
> energy is eternal."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That sounds like dip-shit believes he is a spirit that just so happens
to be in a temporary body.

Gee! THAT is what the bible says too!

Do you believe how dumb they can be while claiming to be SO EDCUATED?


.

Frank J

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 7:52:28 AM12/12/09
to
On Dec 12, 4:01�am, TheBicyclingGuitarist
> The thread in question can be found athttp://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/obamas-possible-reaction-to...
>
> enjoy!

Please tell those you invite that some of us will *not* call them
wackos nutjobs or fundies, but will calmly and respectfully ask
questions about their alternate "theory." If they evade questions,
answer the wrong questions, or try to change the subject back to long-
refuted "weaknesses" of "Darwinism," we will calmly remind them to get
back to the questions asked.

All-seeing-I

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 10:08:07 AM12/12/09
to

[hysterical laughter]

TheBicyclingGuitarist

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 12:30:32 PM12/12/09
to
> [hysterical laughter]- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

hysterical laugher or insane cackling?

TheBicyclingGuitarist

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 12:35:22 PM12/12/09
to
On Dec 12, 4:11�am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
> > Hello everybody! For several months I have been engaged off and on in
> > debate with a fundie Christian creationist on "A Different Kind of
> > Blog", so-called because this blog has multiple authors of differing
> > political and religious viewpoints.
>
> > As happens here, there as well sometimes the topic changes during the
> > course of discussion, sometimes changes subject again, sometimes
> > changes back to the original topic, sometimes not. Anyway, at least
> > one of the editors became annoyed recently that this fundie
> > creationist and I hijacked a thread and turned it into creation v.
> > evolution. His solution was to post a new thread just for us to fight
> > it out!
>
> > Anyone can post to this blog. I invite even the wacko nutjob
> > creationist regulars here to join in. Of course I would be most
> > honored to hear some feedback on my reasoning and arguments used in my
> > comments in that thread.
>
> > The thread in question can be found at
> >http://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/obamas-possible-reaction-to...

>
> > enjoy!
>
> Hey flunker, did you write this:
>
> "The point is that we are temporary local patterns of energy, but the
> energy is eternal."- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm guessing that by "flunker" you're referring to me, which of course
reinforces the stereotype that creationists can't comprehend what they
read. My name is clearly The Bicycling Guitarist, or TBG for short. If
you do want to be insulting, please try for entertainment's sake to be
more creative. Come up with something that really mocks me and
evolution but is a pun on my name, for example. I'm trying to do so
but failing right now. :(

Anyway, The Bicycling Guitarist wrote that, yes. and I explain further
in post # of that ADKOB thread. I cut and paste the relevant part
below:
Hasn�t anyone heard of E=MC^2 ?

All matter is condensed chunks of energy. The energy forms patterns
that interact with other patterns of energy. The energy changes form,
but is neither created nor destroyed.

Our bodies are like whirlpools in a stream. The cells of your body are
not the same as they were a few years ago. Energy flows into this
pattern and out of it. Eventually the pattern dissipates (what we call
the death of the body), but the energy that formed the pattern existed
before it took that form and continues afterward in other forms.

TheBicyclingGuitarist

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 12:38:33 PM12/12/09
to
> .- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

YES All Seeing I. We agree on that.
The Bible also says man is made from the dust of the earth. So does
evolution.

The Bible also says creatures bring forth offspring after their kind.
SO DOES EVOLUTION!
Animals bringing forth offspring �after their kind� is perfectly
consistent with what is known by science. Individuals don�t evolve;
populations do. Any set of parents will produce offspring that are
very similar to those parents, but the relative frequency of which
alleles are expressed in a population can shift over time in response
to environmental pressures, and over enough time can and does result
in new species being produced.

T Pagano

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 12:46:39 PM12/12/09
to


Apparently TheBicyclingQuitarist hasn't been in this forum very long.
Yet had he reviewed only a few of the recent threads he'd have seen a
good share of his brother secular-atheist-evolutionists doing the ol'
soft shoe along with the heavy back peddle.

Regards,
T Pagano

TheBicyclingGuitarist

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 12:49:52 PM12/12/09
to
On Dec 12, 1:01�am, TheBicyclingGuitarist
> The thread in question can be found athttp://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/obamas-possible-reaction-to...
>
> enjoy!

Oh, there's a new format that just started this morning in this
thread. A creationist (note I did NOT call him a wacky nutjob fundie,
although I might eventually if that's what he shows himself to be or
if I become frustrated) posted and had the superb taste and restraint
to answer my ONE question and pose ONE question of his own. I think
that's a splendid idea to keep the debate focused, unlike those
creationism debates onstage where the wacko nutjob fundies (sorry!)
rattle off so many distortions and lies in so short a space of time
(the Gish Gallop) that there's no way to answer all the insanity in
the time provided.

So, here's what I proposed. We answer the ONE question posed in the
previous post. Adding extra commentary is fine, but should be relevant
to explaining our answer. Then you get to pose ONE question of your
own! Doesn't this sound fun!

To make it easy to spot which are THE QUESTIONS and THE ANSWERS and
not just added commentary, please emphasize the text of <strong>THE
QUESTION</strong> and <strong>THE ANSWER</strong> using "strong" in
the coding instead of "b". That is better for accessibility issues
concerning the way screen readers will render the text. Thanks.

TheBicyclingGuitarist

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 1:14:55 PM12/12/09
to
> T Pagano- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Bravo Tony! QUITarist is funny! I like that! May I use it with your
permission? Should I or must I attribute you as source everytime I do?
I can and will if those are your conditions.

Actually though, I've been lurking and sometimes posting to this
thread for many years, at least five or six years. I usually check it
two or three times a day. I stopped posting as much in the last year
because of the problems with Google groups, which unfortunately are
the only means I have to participate right now. It seems some at least
of the bugs are fixed.

So when will creationists finally admit they are wrong about a literal
reading of Genesis being supported by the evidence of the world God
created? Christians finally admitted that the earth goes around the
sun instead of vice versa, and there is at least as much proof humans
and chimps share common ancestry as there is of that other natural
fact.

RAM

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 1:14:27 PM12/12/09
to

Could you be more specific Pags?

I see "The BicyclingGuitarist" as a kook some what like you and
ASSinine. The difference is he is not into rigid mindless religious
mythologies, at least not yet.

Does this count as a stomp on your sacred toes?

Ye Old One

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 1:20:00 PM12/12/09
to

No it does not.


>
>Gee! THAT is what the bible says too!
>
>Do you believe how dumb they can be while claiming to be SO EDCUATED?

Never as dumb as you and NashtOff combined.


--
Bob.

NashtOff - the moron who claimed "All drugs are derived from the ToE."

Ye Old One

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 1:18:57 PM12/12/09
to

Sounds very bright.

Totally unlike the things you say.

Frank J

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 1:33:47 PM12/12/09
to
On Dec 12, 1:14�pm, TheBicyclingGuitarist

If one calls Michael Behe a "creationist," and most of his critics do,
he has admitted (in so many words) that the evidence does *not*
support any of the mutually contradictory interpretations of Genesis
that are claimed to be "the" literal one. And not one of his DI
colleagues has challenged him, so there must be lots of creationists
who admit that, amongst themselves at least.

So you might want to tell those Biblical literalists to challenge the
DI people. They should have an easier time with them because they
don't have convince them that evolution has problems.


> Christians finally admitted that the earth goes around the
> sun instead of vice versa, and there is at least as much proof humans
> and chimps share common ancestry as there is of that other natural

> fact.- Hide quoted text -

Nashton

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 1:47:52 PM12/12/09
to
Ye Old One wrote:


So how many toilets was it you said that you cleaned every day?

Ye Old One

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 2:24:31 PM12/12/09
to

None, I employ people for that sort of work. No use applying though
NashtOff, you are neither bright enough to be allowed access to the
chemicals, not are you honest enough to allow near other workers.

Nashton

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 2:34:08 PM12/12/09
to
TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:

Another clueless crap-for-brains that thinks because he likes science
that he actually know the first thing about it.

No, stupid, the ToE makes no mention of the creation of life from
inorganic matter. You fit in right with the likes of YOO, Thompson,
Boikat, Will and the other clueless, USELESS activists that infest this ng.

>
> The Bible also says creatures bring forth offspring after their kind.
> SO DOES EVOLUTION!

No, it doesn't dip wad. The ToE deals primarily with alleged descent via
modification.


> Animals bringing forth offspring �after their kind� is perfectly
> consistent with what is known by science.

Nice try in attempting to adapt your worldview to what you (erroneously)
believe is contained in the Bible.

Individuals don�t evolve;
> populations do. Any set of parents will produce offspring that are
> very similar to those parents, but the relative frequency of which
> alleles are expressed in a population can shift over time in response
> to environmental pressures, and over enough time can and does result
> in new species being produced.

The fact that individuals don't evolve is a question that is very much
open for debate, given new research on Lamarckian-like changes occurring
in organisms.

Go back to lurking.
>

All-seeing-I

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 2:35:20 PM12/12/09
to
***SHUNNED***

For lies. stalking and Gross Human Stupidity

All-seeing-I

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 2:37:00 PM12/12/09
to
On Dec 12, 11:38�am, TheBicyclingGuitarist
<Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
> Animals bringing forth offspring after their kind is perfectly
> consistent with what is known by science. Individuals don t evolve;

> populations do. Any set of parents will produce offspring that are
> very similar to those parents,

Good so far

> but the relative frequency of which
> alleles are expressed in a population can shift over time in response
> to environmental pressures, and over enough time can and does result
> in new species being produced

BEEEEEP

Wrong answer. The bible does not even suggest this.

All-seeing-I

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 2:44:02 PM12/12/09
to

Let's see.

1) You believe something as different as a fish can give rise to
humans
2) You believe apes and men are interchangeable as a species
3) You believe 1 & 2 happens so lowly that it is not noticeable for
millions of years

It seems you are the one that believes mindless myth-o's. Not
creationists. Creationists at least have recorded textual evidence of
eye witness accounts to base their beliefs on.

You have.... your little fantasy.


Fish4Cats

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 2:48:01 PM12/12/09
to

So the bible agrees with the views of dip-shits. Go figure.

> Do you believe how dumb they can be while claiming to be SO EDCUATED?

No, people like you constantly astound me.

..fish

Bob Casanova

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 2:52:48 PM12/12/09
to
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:46:39 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:

>...the heavy back peddle.

Someone is attempting to sell something back to someone? Or
is this merely another example of your semi-literacy?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

All-seeing-I

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 2:52:09 PM12/12/09
to
On Dec 12, 11:49�am, TheBicyclingGuitarist

yeah. If you like to have your posting style controled by micro
brained freaks on power trips. Besides. Blogs have ruined the
internet. When you need info you have to wade through blog posts that
are totally irrelvent to the search yet get a high index rank anyway.
If that were not bad enough, 50% of the page is annoying advertising.

screw that

>
> To make it easy to spot which are THE QUESTIONS and THE ANSWERS and
> not just added commentary, please emphasize the text of <strong>THE
> QUESTION</strong> and <strong>THE ANSWER</strong> using "strong" in
> the coding instead of "b". That is better for accessibility issues

> concerning the way screen readers will render the text. Thanks.- Hide quoted text -


>
> - Show quoted text -

If the evolutionit cannot be called a "wack-o", hell.. why bother
posting?


Ye Old One

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 2:57:29 PM12/12/09
to


As I keep saying, you really should be shunned. However, as I've also
said many times that would give you an easy way out - a way to escape
and not face up to at least these two examples of your past stupid
claims.

1) That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
[Message-ID: <e3xDk.44738$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>]

2) That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
[Message-ID: <3Olyk.31543$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>]

Now, all you have to do is justify them, with evidence of course, or
finally admit you were a fool to make them.

Or are you just going to go on being a cowardly lying troll?


--
Bob.

When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.

Ye Old One

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 2:56:30 PM12/12/09
to

No, he isn't like you NashtOff.

> that thinks because he likes science
>that he actually know the first thing about it.
>
>No, stupid, the ToE makes no mention of the creation of life from
>inorganic matter. You fit in right with the likes of YOO, Thompson,
>Boikat, Will and the other clueless, USELESS activists that infest this ng.

Oh dear, none of us claimed "All drugs are derived from the ToE." Only
you NashtOff - so who is the really clueless one? Looks like it is you
NashtOff.


>
>>
>> The Bible also says creatures bring forth offspring after their kind.
>> SO DOES EVOLUTION!
>
>No, it doesn't dip wad. The ToE deals primarily with alleged descent via
>modification.

He was right you know NashtOff, you are showing your stupidity by
disagreeing.
>
>
>> Animals bringing forth offspring �after their kind� is perfectly


>> consistent with what is known by science.
>
>Nice try in attempting to adapt your worldview to what you (erroneously)
>believe is contained in the Bible.

Your ignorance and reading problems are showing again.
>
>Individuals don�t evolve;


>> populations do. Any set of parents will produce offspring that are
>> very similar to those parents, but the relative frequency of which
>> alleles are expressed in a population can shift over time in response
>> to environmental pressures, and over enough time can and does result
>> in new species being produced.
>
>The fact that individuals don't evolve is a question that is very much
>open for debate, given new research on Lamarckian-like changes occurring
>in organisms.
>
>Go back to lurking.
>>

--

Ye Old One

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 3:00:58 PM12/12/09
to

That is what the evidence proves.

>2) You believe apes and men are interchangeable as a species

Man is an ape. Not all apes are man.

>3) You believe 1 & 2 happens so lowly that it is not noticeable for
>millions of years

It has taken about 6 million years for us to diverge from chimps to
our current position.


>
>It seems you are the one that believes mindless myth-o's. Not
>creationists. Creationists at least have recorded textual evidence of
>eye witness accounts to base their beliefs on.

No, they don't. They have fairy stories.


>
>You have.... your little fantasy.
>

Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-

Science causes disease.

That 3.5% actually means 25%...

That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...

That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...

That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...

To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...

To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...

That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]

And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...

That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.

Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.

Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.

The [Dropa] stone is real, the troglodytes exist, the graves are
there, many books have been written on the subject...


Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.

--
Bob.

bpuharic

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 3:17:00 PM12/12/09
to
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:34:08 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote:

>TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 4:30 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 12, 6:11 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>> YES All Seeing I. We agree on that.
>> The Bible also says man is made from the dust of the earth. So does
>> evolution.
>
>Another clueless crap-for-brains that thinks because he likes science
>that he actually know the first thing about it.

says the creationist who hates science and doesn't know the first
thing about it.

>
>No, stupid, the ToE makes no mention of the creation of life from
>inorganic matter. You fit in right with the likes of YOO, Thompson,
>Boikat, Will and the other clueless, USELESS activists that infest this ng.

meaningless response. creationists say they KNOW how life got started.

they have NO tests to tell us how it did so. they simply assert THEIR
view of the bible is true and therefore it's science.

so i 2 sentences the creationist asserts he knows science....then
contradicts the very principles on which science is built

all in the name of his ridiculous view of god.

>
>
>> Animals bringing forth offspring �after their kind� is perfectly


>> consistent with what is known by science.
>
>Nice try in attempting to adapt your worldview to what you (erroneously)
>believe is contained in the Bible.

says the creationist attempt to adapt his worldview to what he
(erroneously) believes is contained in the bible

creationists seem blissfully unaware that every criticism they level
at others applies to their own stupid ideas in spades

bpuharic

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 3:18:27 PM12/12/09
to
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:37:00 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
<ap...@email.com> wrote:

but creationists say it does. the say the bible is science so can
explain everything.

and they say it doesn't have to explain anything 'cuz it's the bible

so here we have the 10,000th contradiction in creationism

bpuharic

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 3:20:17 PM12/12/09
to
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:44:02 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
<ap...@email.com> wrote:

>On Dec 12, 12:14�pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 11:46�am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Does this count as a stomp on your sacred toes
>
>Let's see.
>
>1) You believe something as different as a fish can give rise to
>humans
>2) You believe apes and men are interchangeable as a species

well, as a matter of fact, so do you. YOU have said that different
species of fruitflies are 'still fruitflies'. this is EXACTLY like
saying different species of apes....man and other apes for example,
are 'still apes'.

so you believe that as well

>3) You believe 1 & 2 happens so lowly that it is not noticeable for
>millions of years
>
>It seems you are the one that believes mindless myth-o's. Not
>creationists. Creationists at least have recorded textual evidence of
>eye witness accounts to base their beliefs on.

and scientists ahve the textual evidence of evolution.

so you're wrong

sorry

Free Lunch

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 3:22:58 PM12/12/09
to
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:44:02 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com>
wrote in talk.origins:

Not really. I pity you for being so unwilling to learn anything about
science while you indulge in the hubris of "knowing" that you are right.
No god worthy of worship would want you to be an acolyte.

>2) You believe apes and men are interchangeable as a species

Humans are one of the great ape species.

>3) You believe 1 & 2 happens so lowly that it is not noticeable for
>millions of years

That is what the evidence shows. That, of course, is why you remain
intentionally ignorant. You don't want to convince yourself that you
teach foolishness and lies when you teach your false creationism. You
worship yourself and your claims about God. Nothing supports your
claims.

>It seems you are the one that believes mindless myth-o's. Not
>creationists. Creationists at least have recorded textual evidence of
>eye witness accounts to base their beliefs on.

Are you still telling that lie about the Bible having eyewitness
accounts in it? Really?

>You have.... your little fantasy.

You have little integrity.

Nashton

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 3:25:21 PM12/12/09
to
All-seeing-I wrote:
> ***SHUNNED***
>
> For lies. stalking and Gross Human Stupidity
>


The biggest *ever* sucker for punishment in the history of forums, POO
brains. Ignored by everyone except the ones that toy with him.

TheBicyclingGuitarist

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 3:34:16 PM12/12/09
to
> You have.... your little fantasy.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

oops forgot to add most important thing to my first reply to your
message. Creationists have recorded textual evidence of alleged
eyewitnesses. First off, eyewitness testimony is well-known for NOT
being accurate. Secondly, words suck at truly communicating anything,
much less spiritual matters. Translating words to different languages
introduces even more potential for misunderstanding, and the biggest
danger of all is confusing the map for the territory.

So that accounts for what creationists have to support their view, an
interpretation of interpretations of interpretations...okay

What does evolution have on its side? IT'S THE EVIDENCE, STUPID!

Ye Old One

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 3:30:40 PM12/12/09
to
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:52:09 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I

<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

I often ask myself "Why does Mudbrain bother posting?"

After all, you have yet to win a single argument on this group. All
you do is make a fool of yourself with ridiculous claims like:-

Science causes disease.

That 3.5% actually means 25%...

That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...

That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...

That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...

To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...

To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...

That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]

And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...

That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.

Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.

Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.

The [Dropa] stone is real, the troglodytes exist, the graves are
there, many books have been written on the subject...

Just how stupid do you want people to believe you are?

--
Bob.

TheBicyclingGuitarist

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 3:30:59 PM12/12/09
to
On Dec 12, 11:44锟絘m, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 12:14锟絧m, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 12, 11:46锟絘m, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:30:32 -0800 (PST), TheBicyclingGuitarist
>
> > > <Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
> > > >On Dec 12, 7:08锟絘m, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:

> > > >> On Dec 12, 6:52锟絘m, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > >> > Please tell those you invite that some of us will *not* call them
> > > >> > wackos nutjobs or fundies, but will calmly and respectfully ask
> > > >> > questions about their alternate "theory." If they evade questions,
> > > >> > answer the wrong questions, or try to change the subject back to long-
> > > >> > refuted "weaknesses" of "Darwinism," we will calmly remind them to get
> > > >> > back to the questions asked
>
> > > >> [hysterical laughter]- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >hysterical laugher or insane cackling?
>
> > > Apparently TheBicyclingQuitarist hasn't been in this forum very long.
> > > Yet had he reviewed only a few of the recent threads he'd have seen a
> > > good share of his brother secular-atheist-evolutionists doing the ol'
> > > soft shoe along with the heavy back peddle.
>
> > > Regards,
> > > T Pagano
>
> > Could you be more specific Pags?
>
> > I see "The BicyclingGuitarist" as a kook some what like you and
> > ASSinine. 锟絋he difference is he is not into rigid mindless religious

> > mythologies, at least not yet.
>
> > Does this count as a stomp on your sacred toes
>
> Let's see.
>
> 1) You believe something as different as a fish can give rise to
> humans
> 2) You believe apes and men are interchangeable as a species
> 3) You believe 1 & 2 锟絟appens so lowly that it is not noticeable for

> millions of years
>
> It seems you are the one that believes mindless myth-o's. Not
> creationists. Creationists at least have recorded textual evidence of
> eye witness accounts to base their beliefs on.
>
> You have.... your little fantasy.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You're partly right, but as usual with creationists, you misunderstand
my position. I think it is more likely I could express your views to
you to your satisfaction than vice versa. That's a good technique in
discussions such as this to avoid misunderstanding. Even if we
continue to disagree, at least we're sure what we're disagreeing
about.

Number 1 is right. Humans ARE highly-derived fish.
Number 2 is not quite right. You ALMOST have it. All humans are apes,
but not all apes are humans. Got it now? Even if you don't agree with
it, that is my position.
Number 3 is generally right. For example, chimpanzees and us
apparently had a common ancestor about six to eight million years ago.
It doesn't always take that long for differences to be noteworthy, but
millions of years gives enough time for plenty of mutations and
selection to take place.

http://www.TheBicyclingGuitarist.net/songs/evolutio.htm <---
gratuitous plug

RAM

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 3:36:32 PM12/12/09
to
On Dec 12, 1:44嚙緘m, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 12:14嚙緘m, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 12, 11:46嚙窮m, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:30:32 -0800 (PST), TheBicyclingGuitarist
>
> > > <Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
> > > >On Dec 12, 7:08嚙窮m, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:

> > > >> On Dec 12, 6:52嚙窮m, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > >> > Please tell those you invite that some of us will *not* call them
> > > >> > wackos nutjobs or fundies, but will calmly and respectfully ask
> > > >> > questions about their alternate "theory." If they evade questions,
> > > >> > answer the wrong questions, or try to change the subject back to long-
> > > >> > refuted "weaknesses" of "Darwinism," we will calmly remind them to get
> > > >> > back to the questions asked
>
> > > >> [hysterical laughter]- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >hysterical laugher or insane cackling?
>
> > > Apparently TheBicyclingQuitarist hasn't been in this forum very long.
> > > Yet had he reviewed only a few of the recent threads he'd have seen a
> > > good share of his brother secular-atheist-evolutionists doing the ol'
> > > soft shoe along with the heavy back peddle.
>
> > > Regards,
> > > T Pagano
>
> > Could you be more specific Pags?
>
> > I see "The BicyclingGuitarist" as a kook some what like you and
> > ASSinine. 嚙確he difference is he is not into rigid mindless religious

> > mythologies, at least not yet.
>
> > Does this count as a stomp on your sacred toes
>
> Let's see.
>
> 1) You believe something as different as a fish can give rise to
> humans
> 2) You believe apes and men are interchangeable as a species
> 3) You believe 1 & 2 嚙篁appens so lowly that it is not noticeable for

> millions of years
>
> It seems you are the one that believes mindless myth-o's. Not
> creationists. Creationists at least have recorded textual evidence of
> eye witness accounts to base their beliefs on.
>
> You have.... your little fantasy.

So you reject objective observation about science and accept
subjective ancient texts that you have no way of knowing the reflect
reality.

Yes evolution acts slowly in our time frame by fast enough to
accomplish the change in allele frequencies to produce all the
variation we see in organic life. Again your ignorance of science is
not a limitation for science.

And profoundly ignorant you are and that is tour fault.


Nashton

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 3:43:04 PM12/12/09
to
TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
> On Dec 12, 4:11 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:

>> TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
>>> Hello everybody! For several months I have been engaged off and on in
>>> debate with a fundie Christian creationist on "A Different Kind of
>>> Blog", so-called because this blog has multiple authors of differing
>>> political and religious viewpoints.
>>> As happens here, there as well sometimes the topic changes during the
>>> course of discussion, sometimes changes subject again, sometimes
>>> changes back to the original topic, sometimes not. Anyway, at least
>>> one of the editors became annoyed recently that this fundie
>>> creationist and I hijacked a thread and turned it into creation v.
>>> evolution. His solution was to post a new thread just for us to fight
>>> it out!
>>> Anyone can post to this blog. I invite even the wacko nutjob
>>> creationist regulars here to join in. Of course I would be most
>>> honored to hear some feedback on my reasoning and arguments used in my
>>> comments in that thread.
>>> The thread in question can be found at
>>> http://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/obamas-possible-reaction-to...
>>> enjoy!
>> Hey flunker, did you write this:
>>
>> "The point is that we are temporary local patterns of energy, but the
>> energy is eternal."- Hide quoted text -

>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I'm guessing that by "flunker" you're referring to me, which of course
> reinforces the stereotype that creationists can't comprehend what they
> read. My name is clearly The Bicycling Guitarist, or TBG for short. If
> you do want to be insulting, please try for entertainment's sake to be
> more creative. Come up with something that really mocks me and
> evolution but is a pun on my name, for example. I'm trying to do so
> but failing right now. :(
>
> Anyway, The Bicycling Guitarist wrote that, yes. and I explain further
> in post # of that ADKOB thread. I cut and paste the relevant part
> below:
> Hasn�t anyone heard of E=MC^2 ?
>
> All matter is condensed chunks of energy. The energy forms patterns
> that interact with other patterns of energy. The energy changes form,
> but is neither created nor destroyed.
>
> Our bodies are like whirlpools in a stream. The cells of your body are
> not the same as they were a few years ago. Energy flows into this
> pattern and out of it. Eventually the pattern dissipates (what we call
> the death of the body), but the energy that formed the pattern existed
> before it took that form and continues afterward in other forms.
>


Take your prejudices and stuff them.
Take your theories on conservation of matter and energy and stuff them.
Take your assumption that the ToE deals with abiogenesis and stuff it.


Go back to lurking until you're at *least* out of middle school.

And the whirlpool you're alluding to is the thought processes of your
retarded and confused mind.

HTH

hersheyh

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 4:11:17 PM12/12/09
to
On Dec 12, 4:01�am, TheBicyclingGuitarist

<Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
> Hello everybody! For several months I have been engaged off and on in
> debate with a fundie Christian creationist on "A Different Kind of
> Blog", so-called because this blog has multiple authors of differing
> political and religious viewpoints.
>
> As happens here, there as well sometimes the topic changes during the
> course of discussion, sometimes changes subject again, sometimes
> changes back to the original topic, sometimes not. Anyway, at least
> one of the editors became annoyed recently that this fundie
> creationist and I hijacked a thread and turned it into creation v.
> evolution. His solution was to post a new thread just for us to fight
> it out!
>
> Anyone can post to this blog. I invite even the wacko nutjob
> creationist regulars here to join in. Of course I would be most
> honored to hear some feedback on my reasoning and arguments used in my
> comments in that thread.
>
> The thread in question can be found athttp://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/obamas-possible-reaction-to...
>
> enjoy!

Minor pedant point. If by "pond scum" you mean chloroplast-containing
single-celled algae, humans (as well as at least most other metazoan
animals) did not evolve from "pond scum". Humans and pond scum did
share a common ancestor, but that ancestor was almost certainly not
chloroplast-containing. That is, pond scum (even the first organism,
likely now extinct, that met the criteria of being pond scum) was not
our ancestor. Just a very distant cousin.

TheBicyclingGuitarist

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 4:54:04 PM12/12/09
to
> our ancestor. �Just a very distant cousin.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

ty for clearing that up hersheyh. I'll make sure to point that out if
it comes up again. When one person suggested that I emphasize our
fishy ancestors rather than our ape ancestors, the creationist I
invited you all to poke said that the evolutionist position is we came
from pond scum. I wrote her back and said so what if we did? How is
that any different, better or worse than being made from dust, and
also pointed out that pond scum is dust rearranged by chemical
reactions, and also pointed out that even IF we were "poofed" into
existence without actually evolving, that God made us AS apes.

Ye Old One

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 4:53:58 PM12/12/09
to

You are a very silly little trollslob NashtOff.

Ye Old One

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 4:56:04 PM12/12/09
to

>> Hasn�t anyone heard of E=MC^2 ?


>>
>> All matter is condensed chunks of energy. The energy forms patterns
>> that interact with other patterns of energy. The energy changes form,
>> but is neither created nor destroyed.
>>
>> Our bodies are like whirlpools in a stream. The cells of your body are
>> not the same as they were a few years ago. Energy flows into this
>> pattern and out of it. Eventually the pattern dissipates (what we call
>> the death of the body), but the energy that formed the pattern existed
>> before it took that form and continues afterward in other forms.
>>
>
>
>Take your prejudices and stuff them.
>Take your theories on conservation of matter and energy and stuff them.
>Take your assumption that the ToE deals with abiogenesis and stuff it.
>
>
>Go back to lurking until you're at *least* out of middle school.

I bet you hope to pass that landmark at some point in the future.


>
>And the whirlpool you're alluding to is the thought processes of your
>retarded and confused mind.

You are the one that is retarded and confused.
>
>HTH

Nick Keighley

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 4:56:04 PM12/12/09
to
On 12 Dec, 17:35, TheBicyclingGuitarist
<Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:

> On Dec 12, 4:11�am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> > TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:

> > > Hello everybody! For several months I have been engaged off and on in
> > > debate with a fundie Christian creationist on "A Different Kind of
> > > Blog", so-called because this blog has multiple authors of differing
> > > political and religious viewpoints.

I read the blog but I wasn't too impressed with its format. It didn't
seem to thread or quote properly.

<snip>

> > "The point is that we are temporary local patterns of energy, but the
> > energy is eternal.

I don't normally agree with creationists but here I think they may
have a point...

<snip>

> Anyway, The Bicycling Guitarist wrote that, yes. and I explain further

> in post # � of that ADKOB thread. I cut and paste the relevant part
> below:
> Hasn�t anyone heard of E=MC^2 ?

yes


> All matter is condensed chunks of energy. The energy forms patterns
> that interact with other patterns of energy. The energy changes form,
> but is neither created nor destroyed.

ok...

> Our bodies are like whirlpools in a stream.

no, not really. I'm not convinced you have a clear idea what energy
is. The bit about the body dieing when the energy from the brain
stops was weird. And since I don't believe in souls I'm not going to
accept that souls are a form of energy.

> The cells of your body are
> not the same as they were a few years ago. Energy flows into this
> pattern and out of it. Eventually the pattern dissipates (what we call
> the death of the body), but the energy that formed the pattern existed
> before it took that form and continues afterward in other forms.

we might also discuss cults...

TheBicyclingGuitarist

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 5:04:01 PM12/12/09
to
On Dec 12, 1:56�pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> is. The bit about the body dieing when �the energy from the brain

> stops was weird. And since I don't believe in souls I'm not going to
> accept that souls are a form of energy.
>
> > The cells of your body are
> > not the same as they were a few years ago. Energy flows into this
> > pattern and out of it. Eventually the pattern dissipates (what we call
> > the death of the body), but the energy that formed the pattern existed
> > before it took that form and continues afterward in other forms.
>
> we might also discuss cults...

hey that wasn't ME that said the stuff about the body dieing when the
energy when the brain stops. That was Enkill_Eridos who misunderstood
what I said and elaborated on what HE thought I meant. He apologized
when I called him on it. If you re-read more carefully you can see
that, and my further explication of what I said that he misunderstood.

All-Seeing-I

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 5:07:57 PM12/12/09
to
On Dec 12, 2:36�pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 1:44�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 12, 12:14�pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > On Dec 12, 11:46�am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:30:32 -0800 (PST), TheBicyclingGuitarist
>
> > > > <Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
> > > > >On Dec 12, 7:08�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:

> > > > >> On Dec 12, 6:52�am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >> > Please tell those you invite that some of us will *not* call them
> > > > >> > wackos nutjobs or fundies, but will calmly and respectfully ask
> > > > >> > questions about their alternate "theory." If they evade questions,
> > > > >> > answer the wrong questions, or try to change the subject back to long-
> > > > >> > refuted "weaknesses" of "Darwinism," we will calmly remind them to get
> > > > >> > back to the questions asked
>
> > > > >> [hysterical laughter]- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > >hysterical laugher or insane cackling?
>
> > > > Apparently TheBicyclingQuitarist hasn't been in this forum very long.
> > > > Yet had he reviewed only a few of the recent threads he'd have seen a
> > > > good share of his brother secular-atheist-evolutionists doing the ol'
> > > > soft shoe along with the heavy back peddle.
>
> > > > Regards,
> > > > T Pagano
>
> > > Could you be more specific Pags?
>
> > > I see "The BicyclingGuitarist" as a kook some what like you and
> > > ASSinine. �The difference is he is not into rigid mindless religious

> > > mythologies, at least not yet.
>
> > > Does this count as a stomp on your sacred toes
>
> > Let's see.
>
> > 1) You believe something as different as a fish can give rise to
> > humans
> > 2) You believe apes and men are interchangeable as a species
> > 3) You believe 1 & 2 �happens so lowly that it is not noticeable for

> > millions of years
>
> > It seems you are the one that believes mindless myth-o's. Not
> > creationists. Creationists at least have recorded textual evidence of
> > eye witness accounts to base their beliefs on.
>
> > You have.... your little fantasy.
>
> So you reject objective observation about science and accept
> subjective ancient texts that you have no way of knowing the reflect
> reality.
>
> Yes evolution acts slowly in our time frame by fast enough to
> accomplish the change in allele frequencies to produce all the
> variation we see in organic life. �Again your ignorance of science is
> not a limitation for science.
>
> And profoundly ignorant you are and that is tour fault

You have no observations, evo-freak.

Have you observed a population of fish evolving into a populations of
humans?

All-Seeing-I

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 5:18:51 PM12/12/09
to
On Dec 12, 2:22锟絧m, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:44:02 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com>
> wrote in talk.origins:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 12, 12:14锟絧m, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> On Dec 12, 11:46锟絘m, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> >> > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:30:32 -0800 (PST), TheBicyclingGuitarist
>
> >> > <Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
> >> > >On Dec 12, 7:08锟絘m, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:

> >> > >> On Dec 12, 6:52锟絘m, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> > >> > Please tell those you invite that some of us will *not* call them
> >> > >> > wackos nutjobs or fundies, but will calmly and respectfully ask
> >> > >> > questions about their alternate "theory." If they evade questions,
> >> > >> > answer the wrong questions, or try to change the subject back to long-
> >> > >> > refuted "weaknesses" of "Darwinism," we will calmly remind them to get
> >> > >> > back to the questions asked
>
> >> > >> [hysterical laughter]- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> > >hysterical laugher or insane cackling?
>
> >> > Apparently TheBicyclingQuitarist hasn't been in this forum very long.
> >> > Yet had he reviewed only a few of the recent threads he'd have seen a
> >> > good share of his brother secular-atheist-evolutionists doing the ol'
> >> > soft shoe along with the heavy back peddle.
>
> >> > Regards,
> >> > T Pagano
>
> >> Could you be more specific Pags?
>
> >> I see "The BicyclingGuitarist" as a kook some what like you and
> >> ASSinine. 锟絋he difference is he is not into rigid mindless religious

> >> mythologies, at least not yet.
>
> >> Does this count as a stomp on your sacred toes
>
> >Let's see.
>
> >1) You believe something as different as a fish can give rise to
> >humans
>
> Not really. I pity you for being so unwilling to learn anything about
> science while you indulge in the hubris of "knowing" that you are right.
> No god worthy of worship would want you to be an acolyte.

Good because I do not worship gods I worship the one true God. You
will meet him one day. It won't be pretty

BTW. Do you have any "REAL" science to show me? Evoultion does not
qualify. It does not meet the basic standard of the scientific method.

>
> >2) You believe apes and men are interchangeable as a species
>
> Humans are one of the great ape species.

Evidence>?


>
> >3) You believe 1 & 2 锟絟appens so lowly that it is not noticeable for


> >millions of years
>
> That is what the evidence shows. That, of course, is why you remain
> intentionally ignorant. You don't want to convince yourself that you
> teach foolishness and lies when you teach your false creationism. You
> worship yourself and your claims about God. Nothing supports your
> claims.

This is what YOUR INTERPRETATION of the evidence shows.

Many disagree with you.

In typical atheistic fashion and with a dash of arrogance you have to
qualify your remarks by first by claiming I am ignorant. Which clearly
shows you to be the ignorant one.


> >It seems you are the one that believes mindless myth-o's. Not
> >creationists. Creationists at least have recorded textual evidence of
> >eye witness accounts to base their beliefs on.
>
> Are you still telling that lie about the Bible having eyewitness
> accounts in it? Really?

Well. State your reasons why the Bible would lie and say they are eye
witnessed accounts. Until then. FOAD

> >You have.... your little fantasy.
>
> You have little integrity

THAT would be you. You can not make your case for evolution without
the need to insult the other person. Showing your lack if intelligence
as well as your lack of character.


Nick Keighley

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 5:15:52 PM12/12/09
to
On 12 Dec, 19:44, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 12:14�pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 11:46�am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:30:32 -0800 (PST), TheBicyclingGuitarist
> > > <Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
> > > >On Dec 12, 7:08�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Dec 12, 6:52�am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:

<snip>

> > I see "The BicyclingGuitarist" as a kook some what like [pagano] and


> > ASSinine. �The difference is he is not into rigid mindless religious
> > mythologies, at least not yet.

though he does have some slightly odd ideas...

> > Does this count as a stomp on your sacred toes
>
> Let's see.
>
> 1) You believe something as different as a fish can give rise to
> humans

he was wrong there. The "fish" we evolved from are not modern fish.
Just as the single celled things we evolved from was not "pond
scum" (isn't pond scum a plant?).

We did evolve from something mono-cellular and we are evolved
fromsomething that swam in the sea and there is a common ancestor to
both us and modern fish. We're both vertebrates after all!

> 2) You believe apes and men are interchangeable as a species

this isn't true and he didn't say it.

> 3) You believe 1 & 2 �happens so lowly that it is not noticeable for
> millions of years

what? There's a ton of evidence for human evolution from ape
ancestors. Lucy.


> It seems you are the one that believes mindless myth-o's. Not
> creationists. Creationists at least have recorded textual evidence of
> eye witness accounts to base their beliefs on.

giggle. I've got a book of Norse Legends is that textual evidence for
you?

"In the centre of space there was,in the morning of time, a abyss
called Ginnunga-gap, the cleft of clefts, the yawning gulf, whose
depths no eye could fathom, as it was engulfed in perpectual
twilight."

"Groping about in the gloom for something to eat, Ymir perceived a
gigantic coe called Audhumla (the nourisher)..."

Then he has a daughter and a son from the sweat of his armpit (eehu!).
One was a six headed giant Thrudelmir.

We were created from blocks of wood from two ash trees.

This is all doumented (Guerber "Myths of The Norsemen") so it *must*
be true!


> You have.... your little fantasy.


:-)


bpuharic

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 5:27:29 PM12/12/09
to
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:18:51 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:

>On Dec 12, 2:22�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:44:02 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com>
>> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> Not really. I pity you for being so unwilling to learn anything about
>> science while you indulge in the hubris of "knowing" that you are right.
>> No god worthy of worship would want you to be an acolyte.
>
>Good because I do not worship gods I worship the one true God. You
>will meet him one day. It won't be pretty

it's certainly not any god recognized in the religions of the world.

>
>BTW. Do you have any "REAL" science to show me? Evoultion does not
>qualify. It does not meet the basic standard of the scientific method.

we scientists think it does. you creationists??

still blaming earthquakes on ghosts


>>
>> That is what the evidence shows. That, of course, is why you remain
>> intentionally ignorant. You don't want to convince yourself that you
>> teach foolishness and lies when you teach your false creationism. You
>> worship yourself and your claims about God. Nothing supports your
>> claims.
>
>This is what YOUR INTERPRETATION of the evidence shows.
>
>Many disagree with you.
>
>In typical atheistic fashion and with a dash of arrogance you have to
>qualify your remarks by first by claiming I am ignorant. Which clearly
>shows you to be the ignorant one.

you pretend you know science. yet you're not a scientist. you haven't
spent a SINGLE day in a lab. but you sneer at scientists as if you've
spent your whole career doing science

what success do you think you'd have going into a courtroom and acting
as a lawyer? or if you went into an ER and tried to act as a doctor?

yet you assert that, because you're a religious fanatic, you know
science

i dont THINK so...


>>
>> Are you still telling that lie about the Bible having eyewitness
>> accounts in it? Really?
>
>Well. State your reasons why the Bible would lie and say they are eye
>witnessed accounts. Until then. FOAD

because it was impossible for people to have WITNESSED the creation if
people were CREATED in the creation. that's IMPOSSIBLE

yet you say it's not.

creationism is a dead idea

>

bpuharic

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 5:28:30 PM12/12/09
to

yeah the fossil record shows it.

and creationism? still trying to figure out how ghosts cause
earthquakes

Free Lunch

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 5:41:43 PM12/12/09
to
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:18:51 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:

>On Dec 12, 2:22�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:44:02 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com>
>> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> >On Dec 12, 12:14�pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:


>> >> On Dec 12, 11:46�am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:30:32 -0800 (PST), TheBicyclingGuitarist
>>
>> >> > <Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:

>> >> > >On Dec 12, 7:08�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:


>> >> > >> On Dec 12, 6:52�am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > >> > Please tell those you invite that some of us will *not* call them
>> >> > >> > wackos nutjobs or fundies, but will calmly and respectfully ask
>> >> > >> > questions about their alternate "theory." If they evade questions,
>> >> > >> > answer the wrong questions, or try to change the subject back to long-
>> >> > >> > refuted "weaknesses" of "Darwinism," we will calmly remind them to get
>> >> > >> > back to the questions asked
>>
>> >> > >> [hysterical laughter]- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> > >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> > >hysterical laugher or insane cackling?
>>
>> >> > Apparently TheBicyclingQuitarist hasn't been in this forum very long.
>> >> > Yet had he reviewed only a few of the recent threads he'd have seen a
>> >> > good share of his brother secular-atheist-evolutionists doing the ol'
>> >> > soft shoe along with the heavy back peddle.
>>
>> >> > Regards,
>> >> > T Pagano
>>
>> >> Could you be more specific Pags?
>>
>> >> I see "The BicyclingGuitarist" as a kook some what like you and

>> >> ASSinine. �The difference is he is not into rigid mindless religious


>> >> mythologies, at least not yet.
>>
>> >> Does this count as a stomp on your sacred toes
>>
>> >Let's see.
>>
>> >1) You believe something as different as a fish can give rise to
>> >humans
>>
>> Not really. I pity you for being so unwilling to learn anything about
>> science while you indulge in the hubris of "knowing" that you are right.
>> No god worthy of worship would want you to be an acolyte.
>
>Good because I do not worship gods I worship the one true God.

We've seen you make that claim before, but when challenged on it, you
could not demonstrate that the god you worshipped was "the one true
God". Even if there were such, why would He want you to be telling lies
in His name? What excuse will you provide to Him for the lies you tell?

>You will meet him one day. It won't be pretty

I doubt that there are any gods, but I'm not the one who is telling lies
about the one you claim to worship. You should be the one who is
worried.

>BTW. Do you have any "REAL" science to show me? Evoultion does not
>qualify. It does not meet the basic standard of the scientific method.

Evolution does qualify, but you are to intentionally ignorant about it
to accept reality.

>> >2) You believe apes and men are interchangeable as a species
>>
>> Humans are one of the great ape species.
>
>Evidence>?

Biology.

Are you really as ignorant, foolish and dishonest as you play here? If
so, how do you manage to get out of your mother's basement every morning
to eat?

>> >3) You believe 1 & 2 �happens so lowly that it is not noticeable for


>> >millions of years
>>
>> That is what the evidence shows. That, of course, is why you remain
>> intentionally ignorant. You don't want to convince yourself that you
>> teach foolishness and lies when you teach your false creationism. You
>> worship yourself and your claims about God. Nothing supports your
>> claims.
>
>This is what YOUR INTERPRETATION of the evidence shows.

The evidence is clear. Your doctrines were proven false by the
discoveries of science over the past two centuries. You have no excuse
for teaching your false doctrines. This is not about science. We all
know that. It is about how dishonest some religious folks are willing to
be in defending doctrines that are known to be false and were rejected
by those who have not chosen to tell lies to defend their doctrines.

You have chosen to be a liar. Why?

>Many disagree with you.

It does not matter what you claim. You have no evidence to back up your
doctrines. You have no justification for ignoring the science that shows
that evolution happened and is happening.

>In typical atheistic fashion and with a dash of arrogance you have to
>qualify your remarks by first by claiming I am ignorant. Which clearly
>shows you to be the ignorant one.

You are immoral. You cannot justify your behavior at all. You hide your
lies behind your religious doctrines, but you know you are lying. We all
know you are lying.

>> >It seems you are the one that believes mindless myth-o's. Not
>> >creationists. Creationists at least have recorded textual evidence of
>> >eye witness accounts to base their beliefs on.
>>
>> Are you still telling that lie about the Bible having eyewitness
>> accounts in it? Really?
>
>Well. State your reasons why the Bible would lie and say they are eye
>witnessed accounts. Until then. FOAD
>
>> >You have.... your little fantasy.
>>
>> You have little integrity
>
>THAT would be you. You can not make your case for evolution without
>the need to insult the other person. Showing your lack if intelligence
>as well as your lack of character.

The case for evolution has been made. Only religious zealots who would
rather lie than admit that they teach doctrines that have been shown to
be false centuries ago deny that evolution happens and has happened. You
have no scientific criticism of the discoveries of evolution.

Creationism (including Intelligent Design and every other science-free
objection to evolution) has nothing to do with science. It is a
confidence game that is designed to sucker the religiously credulous
into paying the criminals who are telling them the false stories about
Creation.

My only question for you is why you are defending these criminals? Are
you a member of one of the organized crime rings with names like Answers
in Genesis, Creation Research Society, Institute for Creation Research
or the Discovery Institute? Who pays you to act like a lying fool here?

heekster

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 5:40:40 PM12/12/09
to
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 04:30:54 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
<ap...@email.com> wrote:

>On Dec 12, 6:11�am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>> TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
>> > Hello everybody! For several months I have been engaged off and on in
>> > debate with a fundie Christian creationist on "A Different Kind of
>> > Blog", so-called because this blog has multiple authors of differing
>> > political and religious viewpoints.
>>

>> > As happens here, there as well sometimes the topic changes during the
>> > course of discussion, sometimes changes subject again, sometimes
>> > changes back to the original topic, sometimes not. Anyway, at least
>> > one of the editors became annoyed recently that this fundie
>> > creationist and I hijacked a thread and turned it into creation v.
>> > evolution. His solution was to post a new thread just for us to fight
>> > it out!
>>
>> > Anyone can post to this blog. I invite even the wacko nutjob
>> > creationist regulars here to join in. Of course I would be most
>> > honored to hear some feedback on my reasoning and arguments used in my
>> > comments in that thread.
>>
>> > The thread in question can be found at
>> >http://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/obamas-possible-reaction-to...
>>
>> > enjoy!
>>
>> Hey flunker, did you write this:
>>

>> "The point is that we are temporary local patterns of energy, but the

>> energy is eternal."- Hide quoted text -


>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

>That sounds like dip-shit believes he is a spirit that just so happens
>to be in a temporary body.
>
>Gee! THAT is what the bible says too!
>
>Do you believe how dumb they can be while claiming to be SO EDCUATED?
>

It just fascinates me how you can be so willfully stupid, and
repeatedly misspell the words "educated" and "category".

Is some breakfast cereal having a contest for the dumbest motherfucker
on usenet, and this is your way of running up your score?

You are so shallow, compared to you, rice paper is deep.

Ye Old One

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 7:26:29 PM12/12/09
to
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:18:51 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I

Which one?

> You
>will meet him one day.

Nah! Since all gods are fictional that will be impossible.

> It won't be pretty
>
>BTW. Do you have any "REAL" science to show me? Evoultion does not
>qualify.

But evolution does.

> It does not meet the basic standard of the scientific method.

Liar!


>
>>
>> >2) You believe apes and men are interchangeable as a species
>>
>> Humans are one of the great ape species.
>
>Evidence>?

Yes, I suppose you really are that dim.


>
>
>>
>> >3) You believe 1 & 2 锟絟appens so lowly that it is not noticeable for
>> >millions of years
>>
>> That is what the evidence shows. That, of course, is why you remain
>> intentionally ignorant. You don't want to convince yourself that you
>> teach foolishness and lies when you teach your false creationism. You
>> worship yourself and your claims about God. Nothing supports your
>> claims.
>
>This is what YOUR INTERPRETATION of the evidence shows.

You try to avoid reality - but there is no way you can.
>
>Many disagree with you.

Not in science circles.

>
>In typical atheistic fashion and with a dash of arrogance you have to
>qualify your remarks by first by claiming I am ignorant.

You are, we know that.

> Which clearly
>shows you to be the ignorant one.

Nope. We all know you are the ignorant one.


>
>
>> >It seems you are the one that believes mindless myth-o's. Not
>> >creationists. Creationists at least have recorded textual evidence of
>> >eye witness accounts to base their beliefs on.
>>
>> Are you still telling that lie about the Bible having eyewitness
>> accounts in it? Really?
>
>Well. State your reasons why the Bible would lie

It is a work of fiction. What part of that is hard to understand?

>and say they are eye
>witnessed accounts. Until then. FOAD

Oh what a nice little trollslob you are not.


>
>> >You have.... your little fantasy.
>>
>> You have little integrity
>
>THAT would be you.

No. It is you. An intellectual retard with a barely measurable IQ. You
live by bronze age fairy tales, constantly lie and refuse to face up
to the stupidity of your past claims.

>You can not make your case for evolution without
>the need to insult the other person.

You are the insult - to everyone's intelligence.

> Showing my lack if intelligence
>as well as my lack of character.
>
Text corrected.

--
Bob.

When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.

Ye Old One

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 7:28:10 PM12/12/09
to
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:07:57 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I

<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

>On Dec 12, 2:36嚙緘m, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 1:44嚙緘m, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 12, 12:14嚙緘m, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:


>>
>> > > On Dec 12, 11:46嚙窮m, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:30:32 -0800 (PST), TheBicyclingGuitarist
>>
>> > > > <Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:

>> > > > >On Dec 12, 7:08嚙窮m, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:


>> > > > >> On Dec 12, 6:52嚙窮m, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > >> > Please tell those you invite that some of us will *not* call them
>> > > > >> > wackos nutjobs or fundies, but will calmly and respectfully ask
>> > > > >> > questions about their alternate "theory." If they evade questions,
>> > > > >> > answer the wrong questions, or try to change the subject back to long-
>> > > > >> > refuted "weaknesses" of "Darwinism," we will calmly remind them to get
>> > > > >> > back to the questions asked
>>
>> > > > >> [hysterical laughter]- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > > >hysterical laugher or insane cackling?
>>
>> > > > Apparently TheBicyclingQuitarist hasn't been in this forum very long.
>> > > > Yet had he reviewed only a few of the recent threads he'd have seen a
>> > > > good share of his brother secular-atheist-evolutionists doing the ol'
>> > > > soft shoe along with the heavy back peddle.
>>
>> > > > Regards,
>> > > > T Pagano
>>
>> > > Could you be more specific Pags?
>>
>> > > I see "The BicyclingGuitarist" as a kook some what like you and

>> > > ASSinine. 嚙確he difference is he is not into rigid mindless religious


>> > > mythologies, at least not yet.
>>
>> > > Does this count as a stomp on your sacred toes
>>
>> > Let's see.
>>
>> > 1) You believe something as different as a fish can give rise to
>> > humans
>> > 2) You believe apes and men are interchangeable as a species

>> > 3) You believe 1 & 2 嚙篁appens so lowly that it is not noticeable for


>> > millions of years
>>
>> > It seems you are the one that believes mindless myth-o's. Not
>> > creationists. Creationists at least have recorded textual evidence of
>> > eye witness accounts to base their beliefs on.
>>
>> > You have.... your little fantasy.
>>
>> So you reject objective observation about science and accept
>> subjective ancient texts that you have no way of knowing the reflect
>> reality.
>>
>> Yes evolution acts slowly in our time frame by fast enough to
>> accomplish the change in allele frequencies to produce all the

>> variation we see in organic life. 嚙璀gain your ignorance of science is


>> not a limitation for science.
>>
>> And profoundly ignorant you are and that is tour fault
>
>You have no observations, evo-freak.

Liar! You know very well that there are lots of observations.


>
>Have you observed a population of fish evolving into a populations of
>humans?

Well, for a somewhat loose definition of fish, yes.


--
Bob.

You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.

macaddicted

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 7:55:26 PM12/12/09
to
T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:30:32 -0800 (PST), TheBicyclingGuitarist
> <Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
>

> >On Dec 12, 7:08 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:


> >> On Dec 12, 6:52 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > Please tell those you invite that some of us will *not* call them
> >> > wackos nutjobs or fundies, but will calmly and respectfully ask
> >> > questions about their alternate "theory." If they evade questions,
> >> > answer the wrong questions, or try to change the subject back to long-
> >> > refuted "weaknesses" of "Darwinism," we will calmly remind them to get
> >> > back to the questions asked
> >>
> >> [hysterical laughter]- Hide quoted text -
> >>
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> >hysterical laugher or insane cackling?
>
>

Pagano, tired of moving goal posts, having finally won an argument with
his sock puppets, posted:

<nothing>

--
macaddicted
Wisdom is radiant and unfading and she is easily discerned
by those who love her and is found by those who seek her.
Wisdom 6:12 (NRSV)

Greg G.

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 9:50:01 PM12/12/09
to
On Dec 12, 2:37�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 11:38 am, TheBicyclingGuitarist
>
>
>
>
>
> <Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:

> > On Dec 12, 4:30 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 12, 6:11 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
> > > > > Hello everybody! For several months I have been engaged off and on in
> > > > > debate with a fundie Christian creationist on "A Different Kind of
> > > > > Blog", so-called because this blog has multiple authors of differing
> > > > > political and religious viewpoints.
>
> > > > > As happens here, there as well sometimes the topic changes during the
> > > > > course of discussion, sometimes changes subject again, sometimes
> > > > > changes back to the original topic, sometimes not. Anyway, at least
> > > > > one of the editors became annoyed recently that this fundie
> > > > > creationist and I hijacked a thread and turned it into creation v.
> > > > > evolution. His solution was to post a new thread just for us to fight
> > > > > it out!
>
> > > > > Anyone can post to this blog. I invite even the wacko nutjob
> > > > > creationist regulars here to join in. Of course I would be most
> > > > > honored to hear some feedback on my reasoning and arguments used in my
> > > > > comments in that thread.
>
> > > > > The thread in question can be found at
> > > > >http://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/obamas-possible-reaction-to...
>
> > > > > enjoy!
>
> > > > Hey flunker, did you write this:
>
> > > > "The point is that we are temporary local patterns of energy, but the
> > > > energy is eternal."- Hide quoted text -

>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > That sounds like dip-shit believes he is a spirit that just so happens
> > > to be in a temporary body.
>
> > > Gee! THAT is what the bible says too!
>
> > > Do you believe how dumb they can be while claiming to be SO EDCUATED?
>
> > > .- Hide quoted text -

>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > YES All Seeing I. We agree on that.
> > The Bible also says man is made from the dust of the earth. So does
> > evolution.
>
> > The Bible also says creatures bring forth offspring after their kind.
> > SO DOES EVOLUTION!
> > Animals bringing forth offspring after their kind is perfectly
> > consistent with what is known by science. Individuals don t evolve;
> > populations do. Any set of parents will produce offspring that are
> > very similar to those parents,
>
> Good so far

>
> > but the relative frequency of which
> > alleles are expressed in a population can shift over time in response
> > to environmental pressures, and over enough time can and does result
> > in new species being produced
>
> BEEEEEP
>
> Wrong answer. The bible does not even suggest this.

Ahem. The first sentence was about the bible. Everything that followed
was about evolution.

Baron Bodissey

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 11:46:17 PM12/12/09
to

Please point out where the Bible addresses change in allele frequency.

Baron Bodissey
That remains to be seen, as the cat said who voided into the sugar
bowl.
� Jack Vance

Baron Bodissey

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 11:52:51 PM12/12/09
to
On Dec 12, 3:43�pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
<snip>

>
> Take your assumption that the ToE deals with abiogenesis and stuff it.

I wait with bated breath your response the next time a cretinist
conflates evolution and abiogenesis.

>
<snip>

hersheyh

unread,
Dec 13, 2009, 12:17:09 AM12/13/09
to
On Dec 12, 4:54�pm, TheBicyclingGuitarist

I prefer to emphasize that we and all life currently existing
(including pond scum) are related to a self-sustaining set of chemical
reactions that have existed (in forms repeatedly modified by local
conditions) since the first self-sustaining set of chemical
reactions. That is, life *is* a set of chemical reactions, not any
particular structure. When those reactions stop, the scientific term
for the structure that remains is 'dead'. When the specific set of
reactions, chemicals, and structures that identify a species stops,
that species is 'extinct'. And when you look, you see that all life
uses a common core of chemical reactions. There are a lot more
similarities than there are differences, even between pond scum and us.

hersheyh

unread,
Dec 13, 2009, 12:38:38 AM12/13/09
to

Oh. Forgot to mention that the set of chemical reactions we call
'life' has been going on unbroken for 3.8 billion years or so, with
only a small fraction of that time having any of the large
multicellular chemical reactions like us.

RAM

unread,
Dec 13, 2009, 1:05:49 AM12/13/09
to

What an ignorant and trite thing to write. You of course engage in
the you weren't there creationist anti-science justifications for
rejecting evolutionary evidence. No and you weren't there for your
ape grand parents procreation event either. But you are here and you
were not immaculate conceived. Do you doubt the reproductive
mechanisms were in play millions of years ago and mutations occurred
to produce radically different life forms. Well of course you do but
it has to do with your religion and the desire to remain ignorant not
because you have empirical evidence. So your denial is dismissed due
to prejudice.

And yes I have observations and they say you are a rigid dogmatic
religious fanatic who is afraid of science because it challenges his
and his religious communities ignorance and he is emotionally
distressed by science doing this.

This observation can be empirically tested to ascertain the truth of
the empirical statement.

What do you think?

TheBicyclingGuitarist

unread,
Dec 13, 2009, 1:11:54 AM12/13/09
to
> multicellular chemical reactions like us.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

good points hersheyh. very good points!

TheBicyclingGuitarist

unread,
Dec 13, 2009, 2:19:52 AM12/13/09
to
On Dec 12, 10:11�pm, TheBicyclingGuitarist
> good points hersheyh. very good points!- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I have heard life described as "a temporary, local decrease of entropy
caused by the presence of enzyme-catalyzed chemical reactions." your
description is more complete than that. I'm collecting as much as I
can of the stuff I've posted on this subject here and elsewhere on the
internet (blogs, public newspaper forums, etc.) and will try to edit
it all down into a condensed form that will kick ass. Thanks for
reading some of my stuff and helping me to improve it.

bpuharic

unread,
Dec 13, 2009, 6:24:10 AM12/13/09
to
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:11:17 -0800 (PST), hersheyh
<hers...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Minor pedant point. If by "pond scum" you mean chloroplast-containing
>single-celled algae, humans (as well as at least most other metazoan
>animals) did not evolve from "pond scum". Humans and pond scum did
>share a common ancestor, but that ancestor was almost certainly not
>chloroplast-containing. That is, pond scum (even the first organism,
>likely now extinct, that met the criteria of being pond scum) was not
>our ancestor. Just a very distant cousin.

hmmm....that would explain some of my inlaws....

Message has been deleted

TheBicyclingGuitarist

unread,
Dec 13, 2009, 7:32:12 AM12/13/09
to
On Dec 13, 3:57�am, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
> TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
>
> [..]

>
> > Anyway, The Bicycling Guitarist wrote that, yes. and I explain further
> > in post # � of that ADKOB thread.
>
> What is an ADKOB thread?

>
> > I cut and paste the relevant part below:
> > Hasn�t anyone heard of E=MC^2 ?
>
> > All matter is condensed chunks of energy. The energy forms patterns that
> > interact with other patterns of energy. The energy changes form, but is
> > neither created nor destroyed.
>
> > Our bodies are like whirlpools in a stream. The cells of your body are

> > not the same as they were a few years ago. Energy flows into this
> > pattern and out of it. Eventually the pattern dissipates (what we call
> > the death of the body), but the energy that formed the pattern existed
> > before it took that form and continues afterward in other forms.
>
> Beautifully put.

Aw shucks, thank you. I actually got the whirlpool concept from the
late "spiritual entertainer" Alan Watts, and the other information
from other sources, then put it together. I was astonished that this
paragraph was so misunderstood by people on that blog (A Different
Kind of Blog or ADKOB) and needed further explication.

Nick Keighley

unread,
Dec 13, 2009, 7:58:01 AM12/13/09
to
On 12 Dec, 22:04, TheBicyclingGuitarist
> that, and my further explication of what I said that he misunderstood.- Hide quoted text -

oops,sorry. I said I found the threading confusing!

Nick Keighley

unread,
Dec 13, 2009, 7:56:59 AM12/13/09
to
On 13 Dec, 07:19, TheBicyclingGuitarist

<Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 10:11�pm, TheBicyclingGuitarist
> <Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 9:38�pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 13, 12:17�am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 12, 4:54�pm, TheBicyclingGuitarist
> > > > <Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 12, 1:11�pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

[from a blog]

> > > > > > Minor pedant point. �If by "pond scum" you mean chloroplast-containing
> > > > > > single-celled algae, humans (as well as at least most other metazoan
> > > > > > animals) did not evolve from "pond scum". �Humans and pond scum did
> > > > > > share a common ancestor, but that ancestor was almost certainly not
> > > > > > chloroplast-containing. �That is, pond scum (even the first organism,
> > > > > > likely now extinct, that met the criteria of being pond scum) was not
> > > > > > our ancestor. �Just a very distant cousin.
>

> > > > > ty for clearing that up hersheyh. I'll make sure to point that out if
> > > > > it comes up again. When one person suggested that I emphasize our
> > > > > fishy ancestors rather than our ape ancestors, the creationist I
> > > > > invited you all to poke said that the evolutionist position is we came
> > > > > from pond scum. I wrote her back and said so what if we did? How is
> > > > > that any different, better or worse than being made from dust, and
> > > > > also pointed out that pond scum is dust rearranged by chemical
> > > > > reactions, and also pointed out that even IF we were "poofed" into
> > > > > existence without actually evolving, that God made us AS apes.
>
> > > > I prefer to emphasize that we and all life currently existing
> > > > (including pond scum) are related to a self-sustaining set of chemical
> > > > reactions that have existed (in forms repeatedly modified by local
> > > > conditions) since the first self-sustaining set of chemical
> > > > reactions. �That is, life *is* a set of chemical reactions, not any
> > > > particular structure. �When those reactions stop, the scientific term
> > > > for the structure that remains is 'dead'. �When the specific set of
> > > > reactions, chemicals, and structures that identify a species stops,
> > > > that species is 'extinct'. �And when you look, you see that all life
> > > > uses a common core of chemical reactions. �There are a lot more
> > > > similarities than there are differences, even between pond scum and us.
>
> > > Oh. Forgot to mention that the set of chemical reactions we call
> > > 'life' has been going on unbroken for 3.8 billion years or so, with
> > > only a small fraction of that time having any of the large
> > > multicellular chemical reactions like us.- Hide quoted text -
>

> I have heard life described as "a temporary, local decrease of entropy


> caused by the presence of enzyme-catalyzed chemical reactions."

I this is a bit earth centric. Although the only life we know about is
all based in the same set of enzymes and chemical reactions I don't
see why life can't have someother form. In fact I's be astonished if
in the vastness of our observed universe there wasn't some other form
of life (i'mholding out hope for Europa). Consider the sheer mind-
boggling size of our universe. Our "island universe" (to use an old
phrase), the galaxy. It contains roughly 100 billion stars. If one
tenth of those is a yellow star a bit like ours then everyone on earth
can 10 each. And there are more galaxies than there are grains of sand
on a beach. This is really really big.

I prefer life to defined as something that uses available energy to
continue its exitence and produces copies of itself. The fact that the
copies are imperfect and the constantly changing environment selects
some life forms and their copies to continue and others not to is
evolution.

Some people extend this definition to call things like computer
viruses and memes (ideas like "if you don't obey these rules [don't
have sex with seomone you aren't married to, don't eat pork] then
you'll go to hell). I think this is pushing it a bit.

From the point of view of archea (bacteria to you and I) eucaryotic
life (that includes you and I) is pretty dull. "Yeah ok they've got
those massive ineffiecent multi-cellular forms but they can only do
one metabolic pathway! CO2 + H2O + dQ <-> CnHnOHn. Some run it
forwards [we call those plants] and some run it backwards [we call
those animals and fungi]. And the environmental limitations! Too hot,
too cold, too acid, no oxygen winge winge". archae live in exciting
places like the fuel tanks of fighter aircraft, the cores of nuclear
reactors, 10miles under the earth, brine pools or boiling springs.
Eucaryocytes are wimps.

> your
> description is more complete than that. I'm collecting as much as I
> can of the stuff I've posted on this subject here and elsewhere on the
> internet (blogs, public newspaper forums, etc.) and will try to edit
> it all down into a condensed form that will kick ass. Thanks for
> reading some of my stuff and helping me to improve it.


--
Nick Keighley

"the dinosaurs have come and gone, we Theriodonts remain"


Gene Poole

unread,
Dec 13, 2009, 11:27:13 AM12/13/09
to
All-seeing-I wrote:
> On Dec 12, 12:14 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 11:46 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:30:32 -0800 (PST), TheBicyclingGuitarist
>>> <Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 12, 7:08 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 12, 6:52 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Please tell those you invite that some of us will *not* call them
>>>>>> wackos nutjobs or fundies, but will calmly and respectfully ask
>>>>>> questions about their alternate "theory." If they evade questions,
>>>>>> answer the wrong questions, or try to change the subject back to long-
>>>>>> refuted "weaknesses" of "Darwinism," we will calmly remind them to get
>>>>>> back to the questions asked
>>>>> [hysterical laughter]- Hide quoted text -

>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> hysterical laugher or insane cackling?
>>> Apparently TheBicyclingQuitarist hasn't been in this forum very long.
>>> Yet had he reviewed only a few of the recent threads he'd have seen a
>>> good share of his brother secular-atheist-evolutionists doing the ol'
>>> soft shoe along with the heavy back peddle.
>>> Regards,
>>> T Pagano
>> Could you be more specific Pags?
>>
>> I see "The BicyclingGuitarist" as a kook some what like you and
>> ASSinine. The difference is he is not into rigid mindless religious
>> mythologies, at least not yet.
>>
>> Does this count as a stomp on your sacred toes
>
> Let's see.
>
> 1) You believe something as different as a fish can give rise to
> humans

Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by "fish"? Do you believe
"fish" is a "kind"? Are, say, sea horses and sharks part of the same
"kind"?

It's really very simple. If separate creation was valid, there would be
no taxonomic groups above "kind". Terms like "mammal" and "bird" would
have no meaning. The data clearly show a pattern: the nested hierarchy.
This pattern demands an explanation. The only process we know of that
produces this pattern is decent with modification from a common
ancestor. You have to show either that the pattern does not exist, or
that there is some other process that can produce this sort of pattern.

hersheyh

unread,
Dec 13, 2009, 12:12:32 PM12/13/09
to
On Dec 13, 6:24�am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:11:17 -0800 (PST), hersheyh
>

Depends. Are you from Kentucky? If so, the distance may have to be
decreased from very distant cousin.

TomS

unread,
Dec 13, 2009, 12:16:42 PM12/13/09
to
"On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:27:13 -0600, in article
<hg34l6$c7r$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Gene Poole stated..."
[...snip...]

>Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by "fish"? Do you believe
>"fish" is a "kind"? Are, say, sea horses and sharks part of the same
>"kind"?
>
>It's really very simple. If separate creation was valid, there would be
>no taxonomic groups above "kind". Terms like "mammal" and "bird" would
>have no meaning. The data clearly show a pattern: the nested hierarchy.
> This pattern demands an explanation. The only process we know of that
>produces this pattern is decent with modification from a common
>ancestor. You have to show either that the pattern does not exist, or
>that there is some other process that can produce this sort of pattern.
[...snip...]

Quite so.

I'd also wonder why there are taxonomic groups (such as species, or,
perhaps, genera) which are *below* "kind".

It seems that the tree of life presents a "complex specified"
pattern which is ignored by those looking for patterns in the world
of life. It couldn't have come about by "pure chance".


--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2

Dana Tweedy

unread,
Dec 13, 2009, 2:12:11 PM12/13/09
to
All-seeing-I wrote:
> On Dec 12, 11:38 am, TheBicyclingGuitarist
snip

>> but the relative frequency of which
>> alleles are expressed in a population can shift over time in response
>> to environmental pressures, and over enough time can and does result
>> in new species being produced
>
> BEEEEEP
>
> Wrong answer. The bible does not even suggest this.

The writers of the Bible weren't biologists, and hadn't studied the matter.
It's known now that new species are produced by this process. It wasn't
known at the time the Bible was written.

DJT

Dana Tweedy

unread,
Dec 13, 2009, 2:20:48 PM12/13/09
to
All-seeing-I wrote:
> On Dec 12, 12:14 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
snip

>> Does this count as a stomp on your sacred toes
>
> Let's see.
>
> 1) You believe something as different as a fish can give rise to
> humans

Why not? Humans, and all other tetrapods show clear evidence of being
descended from lobe finned fish. Humans and fish aren't that much
different, in relation to say, humans and insects, or humans and molluscs.

> 2) You believe apes and men are interchangeable as a species

When did anyone claim that? Apes are not a "species". The term "apes" is
applied to a group of related species of primates. Humans are apes, but
not all apes are humans.

> 3) You believe 1 & 2 happens so lowly that it is not noticeable for
> millions of years

Actually, it's noticable in much less time than that. The evidence left
behind shows that it happened.

>
> It seems you are the one that believes mindless myth-o's.

No, because none of the above is "mindless mytho-o's" Evolution is
science, not myth.

> Not
> creationists.

Odd. Creationism is based entirely on a myth. What makes you think it's
not?

> Creationists at least have recorded textual evidence of
> eye witness accounts to base their beliefs on.

Those "recorded textual evidence of eyewitness accounts" are myth. None
are actual eyewitness accounts, and none were recorded as it was supposedly
happening. All the ancient stories were written down long after the
supposed events. Worse, there isn't any evidence that supports any of
them.

DJT

Dana Tweedy

unread,
Dec 13, 2009, 2:29:03 PM12/13/09
to
All-Seeing-I wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2:22 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
snip

>>
>> Not really. I pity you for being so unwilling to learn anything about
>> science while you indulge in the hubris of "knowing" that you are
>> right. No god worthy of worship would want you to be an acolyte.
>

> Good because I do not worship gods I worship the one true God. You
> will meet him one day. It won't be pretty

How do you know your being is the "one true God"? How do you know that
you aren't worshiping the wrong one?


>
> BTW. Do you have any "REAL" science to show me?

Yes. Quite a bit, actually.

> Evoultion does not
> qualify. It does not meet the basic standard of the scientific method.

What about evolution do you imagine doesn't meet the standard of the
scientific method?

>
>>
>>> 2) You believe apes and men are interchangeable as a species
>>

>> Humans are one of the great ape species.
>
> Evidence>?

Would you like the anatomical evidence, the genetic evidence, the fossil
evidence, the biochemcial evidence, or any of the other sets of evidence?
How about the whole thing?

Just on the anatomical evidence, humans are apes. Humans have every single
anatomical feature that defines the word "ape". That's why Linnaeus
classified humans as apes long before the theory of evolution was proposed.

>
>
>>
>>> 3) You believe 1 & 2 happens so lowly that it is not noticeable for
>>> millions of years
>>

>> That is what the evidence shows. That, of course, is why you remain
>> intentionally ignorant. You don't want to convince yourself that you
>> teach foolishness and lies when you teach your false creationism. You
>> worship yourself and your claims about God. Nothing supports your
>> claims.
>
> This is what YOUR INTERPRETATION of the evidence shows.

Yes, the scientific interpretation shows this. That's why you want to
discard all science.

>
> Many disagree with you.

None of them are scientists, however. The only disagree due to their
religious beliefs.

>
> In typical atheistic fashion and with a dash of arrogance you have to

> qualify your remarks by first by claiming I am ignorant. Which clearly


> shows you to be the ignorant one.

You are ignorant, that's simply a fact. How does showing the other person
is ignorant mean the poster is ignorant himself?

>
>
>>> It seems you are the one that believes mindless myth-o's. Not
>>> creationists. Creationists at least have recorded textual evidence


>>> of eye witness accounts to base their beliefs on.
>>

>> Are you still telling that lie about the Bible having eyewitness
>> accounts in it? Really?
>

> Well. State your reasons why the Bible would lie and say they are eye


> witnessed accounts. Until then. FOAD

Legends and oral tradition are not lies. No one claimed the stories in
the Bible were eyewitness accounts. All of them were reporting events that
supposedly happened in the past.

>
>>> You have.... your little fantasy.
>>

>> You have little integrity
>
> THAT would be you. You can not make your case for evolution without


> the need to insult the other person.

The case for evolution is easily made without insulting the other person.
Insulting you is simply a perk.

> Showing your lack if intelligence
> as well as your lack of character.

More irony. How special.

DJT


Dana Tweedy

unread,
Dec 13, 2009, 2:32:49 PM12/13/09
to
All-Seeing-I wrote:

> On Dec 12, 2:36 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
snip

>> Yes evolution acts slowly in our time frame by fast enough to


>> accomplish the change in allele frequencies to produce all the
>> variation we see in organic life. Again your ignorance of science is
>> not a limitation for science.
>>
>> And profoundly ignorant you are and that is tour fault
>
> You have no observations, evo-freak.

There are many observations of evolution in real time. There are many more
observations of the evidence left behind by evolution.

When has anyone ever observed a supernatual event in a controlled setting?

>
> Have you observed a population of fish evolving into a populations of
> humans?

Yes, by examining the evidence.

DJT

TheBicyclingGuitarist

unread,
Dec 13, 2009, 3:10:43 PM12/13/09
to
On Dec 12, 1:01�am, TheBicyclingGuitarist

<Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
>
> The thread in question can be found athttp://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/obamas-possible-reaction-to...
>
> enjoy!

Hey, I'm not normally one to blow my own horn (probably mainly because
I'm not flexible enough, darn) but the last couple dozen posts to that
ADKOB blog thread (there are 110 posts now, whee!) are quite possibly
the finest writing I have ever done on ANY subject. If you haven't
checked the blog yet, or if you haven't for several hours, there's
been a LOT of activity. One creationist ran away because I wouldn't
allow his rhetorical tricks to cloud the real substance of this issue.
Another, who actually proposes that maybe all other animals evolved
EXCEPT for humans, is totally getting her ass kicked by me,
figuratively speaking..

So anyway, if anyone IS interested, I'd really appreciate feedback
here or there about my replies to high-brow and low-brow creationist
arguments. Start reading about post #83 or so in that blog for the
funnest exchanges (like I said, it is up to 110 as I type this, unless
more posts have come in these past few minutes). Thanks.


off-topic follows
The Bicycling Guitarist plays and sings Help!
http://www.TheBicyclingGuitarist.net/multimedia/mp3/20091213-help-take10.mp3
p.s. I already know I ain't a Beatle. I am The Bicycling Guitarist,
not The Bicycling Singer.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Dec 13, 2009, 5:50:40 PM12/13/09
to
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:37:00 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
<ap...@email.com>:

>On Dec 12, 11:38�am, TheBicyclingGuitarist

><Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 4:30 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:


>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 12, 6:11 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > > TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
>> > > > Hello everybody! For several months I have been engaged off and on in
>> > > > debate with a fundie Christian creationist on "A Different Kind of
>> > > > Blog", so-called because this blog has multiple authors of differing
>> > > > political and religious viewpoints.
>>

>> > > > As happens here, there as well sometimes the topic changes during the
>> > > > course of discussion, sometimes changes subject again, sometimes
>> > > > changes back to the original topic, sometimes not. Anyway, at least
>> > > > one of the editors became annoyed recently that this fundie
>> > > > creationist and I hijacked a thread and turned it into creation v.
>> > > > evolution. His solution was to post a new thread just for us to fight
>> > > > it out!
>>
>> > > > Anyone can post to this blog. I invite even the wacko nutjob
>> > > > creationist regulars here to join in. Of course I would be most
>> > > > honored to hear some feedback on my reasoning and arguments used in my
>> > > > comments in that thread.
>>

>> > > > The thread in question can be found at
>> > > >http://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/obamas-possible-reaction-to...
>>
>> > > > enjoy!
>>
>> > > Hey flunker, did you write this:
>>

>> > > "The point is that we are temporary local patterns of energy, but the

>> > > energy is eternal."- Hide quoted text -


>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>

>> > That sounds like dip-shit believes he is a spirit that just so happens
>> > to be in a temporary body.
>>
>> > Gee! THAT is what the bible says too!
>>
>> > Do you believe how dumb they can be while claiming to be SO EDCUATED?
>>

>> > .- Hide quoted text -


>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>

>> YES All Seeing I. We agree on that.
>> The Bible also says man is made from the dust of the earth. So does
>> evolution.
>>
>> The Bible also says creatures bring forth offspring after their kind.
>> SO DOES EVOLUTION!
>> Animals bringing forth offspring after their kind is perfectly
>> consistent with what is known by science. Individuals don t evolve;
>> populations do. Any set of parents will produce offspring that are
>> very similar to those parents,
>
>Good so far

Yes, and it means that the Bible was correct in saying that
creatures reproduce "after their kind", since any offspring
is able to mate with its parents; something which *was*
observable. But most fundies don't realize this, and think
that it means speciation can't happen. They're wrong; it
says nothing about long-term changes, only direct
reproduction.

>> but the relative frequency of which
>> alleles are expressed in a population can shift over time in response
>> to environmental pressures, and over enough time can and does result
>> in new species being produced
>
>BEEEEEP
>
>Wrong answer. The bible does not even suggest this.

So what? The Bible isn't a science text, and the people who
wrote it had no idea how biology, including evolution,
works, especially over long timespans. The Bible doesn't
mention relativity or quantum mechanics either, nor should
it be expected to do so.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

Bob Casanova

unread,
Dec 13, 2009, 5:51:52 PM12/13/09
to
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:52:48 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

Hey, Tony! You still think "peddle" equals "pedal"? Maybe
you should avoid gay bicycle shops...

>On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:46:39 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>
>>...the heavy back peddle.
>
>Someone is attempting to sell something back to someone? Or
>is this merely another example of your semi-literacy?

Baron Bodissey

unread,
Dec 13, 2009, 7:18:19 PM12/13/09
to
On Dec 12, 5:18�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> BTW. Do you have any "REAL" science to show me? Evoultion does not

> qualify. It does not meet the basic standard of the scientific method.
>
<snip>

Here you go again, spouting ignorance out of your ass.

I ask again: Please list your qualifications to have even the
slightest opinion about science. Do you have any degrees in any
science? Have you ever taken a college-level science class? Did you
pass it? Did you have any high school science classes? Did you pass
them?

Baron Bodissey
The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, but
that they know so many things that ain't so.
� Mark Twain

heekster

unread,
Dec 13, 2009, 7:49:30 PM12/13/09
to
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:18:51 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:

>On Dec 12, 2:22�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:44:02 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com>
>> wrote in talk.origins:


>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 12, 12:14�pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >> On Dec 12, 11:46�am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>

>> >> > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:30:32 -0800 (PST), TheBicyclingGuitarist
>>
>> >> > <Ch...@TheBicyclingGuitarist.net> wrote:


>> >> > >On Dec 12, 7:08�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> >> > >> On Dec 12, 6:52�am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > >> > Please tell those you invite that some of us will *not* call them
>> >> > >> > wackos nutjobs or fundies, but will calmly and respectfully ask
>> >> > >> > questions about their alternate "theory." If they evade questions,
>> >> > >> > answer the wrong questions, or try to change the subject back to long-
>> >> > >> > refuted "weaknesses" of "Darwinism," we will calmly remind them to get
>> >> > >> > back to the questions asked
>>

>> >> > >> [hysterical laughter]- Hide quoted text -


>>
>> >> > >> - Show quoted text -
>>

>> >> > >hysterical laugher or insane cackling?
>>
>> >> > Apparently TheBicyclingQuitarist hasn't been in this forum very long.
>> >> > Yet had he reviewed only a few of the recent threads he'd have seen a
>> >> > good share of his brother secular-atheist-evolutionists doing the ol'
>> >> > soft shoe along with the heavy back peddle.
>>
>> >> > Regards,
>> >> > T Pagano
>>
>> >> Could you be more specific Pags?
>>
>> >> I see "The BicyclingGuitarist" as a kook some what like you and
>> >> ASSinine. �The difference is he is not into rigid mindless religious
>> >> mythologies, at least not yet.
>>

>> >> Does this count as a stomp on your sacred toes
>>
>> >Let's see.
>>
>> >1) You believe something as different as a fish can give rise to
>> >humans
>>

>> Not really. I pity you for being so unwilling to learn anything about
>> science while you indulge in the hubris of "knowing" that you are right.
>> No god worthy of worship would want you to be an acolyte.
>
>Good because I do not worship gods I worship the one true God. You
>will meet him one day. It won't be pretty
>

>BTW. Do you have any "REAL" science to show me? Evoultion does not
>qualify. It does not meet the basic standard of the scientific method.
>
>>

>> >2) You believe apes and men are interchangeable as a species
>>
>> Humans are one of the great ape species.
>
>Evidence>?
>

Has been provided to you often, and in detail.
Perhaps you SHOULD LOOK AT IT.


>
>>
>> >3) You believe 1 & 2 �happens so lowly that it is not noticeable for
>> >millions of years
>>
>> That is what the evidence shows. That, of course, is why you remain
>> intentionally ignorant. You don't want to convince yourself that you
>> teach foolishness and lies when you teach your false creationism. You
>> worship yourself and your claims about God. Nothing supports your
>> claims.
>
>This is what YOUR INTERPRETATION of the evidence shows.
>

No. you have failed to provide anything to support your claims.
And your response is a non sequitur.

>Many disagree with you.

Another non sequitur. You can't name anyone who does,and prove that
they do. And besides, he's right, and you,as usual, are wrong.


>
>In typical atheistic fashion and with a dash of arrogance you have to
>qualify your remarks by first by claiming I am ignorant. Which clearly
>shows you to be the ignorant one.
>

It shows no such thing. It does illuminate your intellectual
dishonesty, and your awe inspiring, unbelievable ignorance.


>
>> >It seems you are the one that believes mindless myth-o's. Not
>> >creationists. Creationists at least have recorded textual evidence of
>> >eye witness accounts to base their beliefs on.
>>
>> Are you still telling that lie about the Bible having eyewitness
>> accounts in it? Really?
>
>Well. State your reasons why the Bible would lie and say they are eye
>witnessed accounts.

No, moron, he is saying that YOU lie about the bible having eyewitness
accounts. You have been disabused of this imbecility in no uncertain
terms, more than once. That you bring it up like this only serves to
once again illuminate the truly amoral nature of your perverse
evangelizing.

>Until then. FOAD
>
Could you repeat that, Beelzebub?

>> >You have.... your little fantasy.
>>
>> You have little integrity
>
>THAT would be you.

No peewee, it is you.

>You can not make your case for evolution without
>the need to insult the other person.

Of course he can. It is just that you would ignore him and his case,
just like you ignore every single bit of evidence for evolution that
your pathetically weak mind is unable to digest.

> Showing your lack if intelligence
>as well as your lack of character.
>

Day in, and day out, you do it on t.o.

Louann Miller

unread,
Dec 14, 2009, 9:49:02 AM12/14/09
to
Frank J <fc...@verizon.net> wrote in news:17f4f36c-3a95-45cb-98e6-
57fa20...@20g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:

> Please tell those you invite that some of us will *not* call them
> wackos nutjobs or fundies, but will calmly and respectfully ask
> questions about their alternate "theory." If they evade questions,
> answer the wrong questions, or try to change the subject back to long-
> refuted "weaknesses" of "Darwinism," we will calmly remind them to get

> back to the questions asked.

Which is extremely mean of you. Being called names, THAT they can cope
with. Calmly being asked to clarify their position leaves them helpless.

Gene Poole

unread,
Dec 15, 2009, 10:56:17 AM12/15/09
to

Chirp, chirp.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Dec 15, 2009, 2:28:44 PM12/15/09
to
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:56:17 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Gene Poole
<gene...@remove.hoxnet.com>:

What, you expected an actual reply? From Non-Seeing-Idiot?
Silly boy...

Bob Casanova

unread,
Dec 15, 2009, 2:30:13 PM12/15/09
to
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:50:40 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

>>> but the relative frequency of which
>>> alleles are expressed in a population can shift over time in response
>>> to environmental pressures, and over enough time can and does result
>>> in new species being produced
>>
>>BEEEEEP
>>
>>Wrong answer. The bible does not even suggest this.
>
>So what? The Bible isn't a science text, and the people who
>wrote it had no idea how biology, including evolution,
>works, especially over long timespans. The Bible doesn't
>mention relativity or quantum mechanics either, nor should
>it be expected to do so.

[Crickets...]

Keep up the good work, Addled.

0 new messages