Re: Antony Flew dies
bpuharic
<notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
>From the article:
>------------------------------------------
>Professor Antony Flew, the rationalist philosopher who died on April 8 aged 87,
>spent much of his life denying the existence of God until, in 2004, he
>dramatically changed his mind.
>-----------------------------------------
>
>Read it at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-
>obituaries/7586929/Professor-Antony-Flew.html or
>http://5z8.info/stealgmailpassword--_t0o8u_friendster-of-sex
>
>
>
>
>J. Spaceman
sorry end to a once clear thinking advocate for reason.
Jason Spaceman
Free Lunch
Does that mean that believing in God is a sign of mental decay?
chris thompson
wrote:
Yes, he changed his mind, but never put forth a convincing argument
for doing so.
Chris
(And his brief flirtation with ID was based on faulty information,
apparently.)
John Wilkins
<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
Not in every case.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
So it's only one of the causes?
John Wilkins
<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:13:45 +1000, John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au>
> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> >In article <f8u9s5tbqdq9r5lvq...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch
> ><lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:36:10 -0400, Jason Spaceman
> >> <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in talk.origins:
> >>
> >> >From the article:
> >> >------------------------------------------
> >> >Professor Antony Flew, the rationalist philosopher who died on April 8
> >> >aged
> >> >87,
> >> >spent much of his life denying the existence of God until, in 2004, he
> >> >dramatically changed his mind.
> >> >-----------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> >Read it at
> >> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-
> >> >obituaries/7586929/Professor-Antony-Flew.html or
> >> >http://5z8.info/stealgmailpassword--_t0o8u_friendster-of-sex
> >>
> >> Does that mean that believing in God is a sign of mental decay?
> >>
> >Not in every case.
>
> So it's only one of the causes?
>
Nobody is insane because they were brought up to believe things that
aren't true.
Kalkidas
news:372b75fa-80bf-4374...@t17g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 13, 6:36 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
> wrote:
>> From the article:
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Professor Antony Flew, the rationalist philosopher who died on April 8
>> aged 87,
>> spent much of his life denying the existence of God until, in 2004, he
>> dramatically changed his mind.
>> -----------------------------------------
>>
>> Read it
>> athttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-
>> obituaries/7586929/Professor-Antony-Flew.html
>> orhttp://5z8.info/stealgmailpassword--_t0o8u_friendster-of-sex
>>
>> J. Spaceman
>
> Yes, he changed his mind, but never put forth a convincing argument
> for doing so.
I'll give one for him: when he finally realized he was going to die, he
simultaneously realized that atheism had been the biggest waste of time
imaginable.
bpuharic
>''
guess he missed the NY times interview where flew didn't even realize
he wrote a book saying god exists.
Glenn
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:39:36 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
I did too. Got it?
Féachadóir
>From the article:
>------------------------------------------
>Professor Antony Flew, the rationalist philosopher who died on April 8 aged 87,
>spent much of his life denying the existence of God until, in 2004, he
>dramatically changed his mind.
Twice.
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir
Glenn
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:36:10 -0400, Jason Spaceman
>
>
>
> <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
> >From the article:
> >------------------------------------------
> >Professor Antony Flew, the rationalist philosopher who died on April 8 aged 87,
> >spent much of his life denying the existence of God until, in 2004, he
> >dramatically changed his mind.
> >-----------------------------------------
>
> >obituaries/7586929/Professor-Antony-Flew.html or
> >http://5z8.info/stealgmailpassword--_t0o8u_friendster-of-sex
>
> >J. Spaceman
>
> sorry end to a once clear thinking advocate for reason.
When did it happen to you, Bob?
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> From the article:
> ------------------------------------------
> Professor Antony Flew, the rationalist philosopher who died on April 8 aged 87,
> spent much of his life denying the existence of God until, in 2004, he
> dramatically changed his mind.
> -----------------------------------------
>
> obituaries/7586929/Professor-Antony-Flew.html orhttp://5z8.info/stealgmailpassword--_t0o8u_friendster-of-sex
>
> J. Spaceman
Yep----based on the scientific evidence of IC.
Flew was one of the few honest scholars who meant what he said when he
said "show me evidence then I will believe."
Ray
bpuharic
wrote:
still waiting for a revelation.
bpuharic
wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?pagewanted=5&_r=1
actually he said he didn't write the book:
When we began the interview, he warned me, with merry
self-deprecation, that he suffers from “nominal aphasia,” or the
inability to reproduce names. But he forgot more than names. He didn’t
remember talking with Paul Kurtz about his introduction to “God and
Philosophy” just two years ago. There were words in his book, like
“abiogenesis,” that now he could not define. When I asked about Gary
Habermas, who told me that he and Flew had been friends for 22 years
and exchanged “dozens” of letters, Flew said, “He and I met at a
debate, I think.” I pointed out to him that in his earlier
philosophical work he argued that the mere concept of God was
incoherent, so if he was now a theist, he must reject huge chunks of
his old philosophy. “Yes, maybe there’s a major inconsistency there,”
he said, seeming grateful for my insight. And he seemed generally
uninterested in the content of his book — he spent far more time
talking about the dangers of unchecked Muslim immigration and his
embrace of the anti-E.U. United Kingdom Independence Party.
As he himself conceded, he had not written his book.
haiku jones
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:03:05 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 13, 4:53 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> >''
>
> >> guess he missed the NY times interview where flew didn't even realize
> >> he wrote a book saying god exists.
>
> >I did too. Got it?
>
>
> actually he said he didn't write the book:
>
> When we began the interview, he warned me, with merry
> self-deprecation, that he suffers from “nominal aphasia,” or the
> inability to reproduce names. But he forgot more than names. He didn’t
> remember talking with Paul Kurtz about his introduction to “God and
> Philosophy” just two years ago. There were words in his book, like
> “abiogenesis,” that now he could not define. When I asked about Gary
> Habermas, who told me that he and Flew had been friends for 22 years
> and exchanged “dozens” of letters, Flew said, “He and I met at a
> debate, I think.” I pointed out to him that in his earlier
> philosophical work he argued that the mere concept of God was
> incoherent, so if he was now a theist, he must reject huge chunks of
> his old philosophy. “Yes, maybe there’s a major inconsistency there,”
> he said, seeming grateful for my insight. And he seemed generally
> uninterested in the content of his book — he spent far more time
> talking about the dangers of unchecked Muslim immigration and his
> embrace of the anti-E.U. United Kingdom Independence Party.
>
> As he himself conceded, he had not written his book.
That is so sad.
Haiku Jones
Glenn
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:06:56 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
Why blabbler until then, then?
Mitchell Coffey
> In article <0su9s5933bt6sdaucldf29cc3s9m2n8...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch
>
>
>
> <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:13:45 +1000, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au>
> > wrote in talk.origins:
>
> > >In article <f8u9s5tbqdq9r5lvqkt962g18qr3s8s...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch> > >> <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> > >> >From the article:
> > >> >------------------------------------------
> > >> >Professor Antony Flew, the rationalist philosopher who died on April 8
> > >> >aged
> > >> >87,
> > >> >spent much of his life denying the existence of God until, in 2004, he
> > >> >dramatically changed his mind.
> > >> >-----------------------------------------
>
> > >> >Read it at
> > >> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-
> > >> >obituaries/7586929/Professor-Antony-Flew.html or
> > >> >http://5z8.info/stealgmailpassword--_t0o8u_friendster-of-sex
>
> > >> Does that mean that believing in God is a sign of mental decay?
>
> > >Not in every case.
>
> > So it's only one of the causes?
>
> Nobody is insane because they were brought up to believe things that
> aren't true.
No true Scotsman would invent a fallacy.
Mitchell
bpuharic
<mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 13, 7:28 pm, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>> In article <0su9s5933bt6sdaucldf29cc3s9m2n8...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch
>>
>>
>> > >> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-
>> > >> >obituaries/7586929/Professor-Antony-Flew.html or
>> > >> >http://5z8.info/stealgmailpassword--_t0o8u_friendster-of-sex
>>
>> > >> Does that mean that believing in God is a sign of mental decay?
>>
>> > >Not in every case.
>>
>> > So it's only one of the causes?
>>
>> Nobody is insane because they were brought up to believe things that
>> aren't true.
>
>No true Scotsman would invent a fallacy.
they invented haggis.
nothing can top that.
of course, they did OK with whisky.
>
>Mitchell
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Apr 13, 5:53 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
guess you didnt read the NY Times article on flew
no surprise. you seem to be immune to anything challenging your
beliefs
Glenn
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:03:05 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 13, 4:53 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> >''
>
> >> guess he missed the NY times interview where flew didn't even realize
> >> he wrote a book saying god exists.
>
> >I did too. Got it?
>
>
> actually he said he didn't write the book:
>
> When we began the interview, he warned me, with merry
> self-deprecation, that he suffers from “nominal aphasia,” or the
> inability to reproduce names. But he forgot more than names. He didn’t
> remember talking with Paul Kurtz about his introduction to “God and
> Philosophy” just two years ago. There were words in his book, like
> “abiogenesis,” that now he could not define. When I asked about Gary
> Habermas, who told me that he and Flew had been friends for 22 years
> and exchanged “dozens” of letters, Flew said, “He and I met at a
> debate, I think.” I pointed out to him that in his earlier
> philosophical work he argued that the mere concept of God was
> incoherent, so if he was now a theist, he must reject huge chunks of
> his old philosophy. “Yes, maybe there’s a major inconsistency there,”
> he said, seeming grateful for my insight. And he seemed generally
> uninterested in the content of his book — he spent far more time
> talking about the dangers of unchecked Muslim immigration and his
> embrace of the anti-E.U. United Kingdom Independence Party.
>
> As he himself conceded, he had not written his book.
Somewhat different from "not realizing" he wrote a book saying God
exists.
That was an interview by Mark Oppenheimer, not really a "NYT
interview", although they printed it. It's a *claim*, unless there is
some audio or video evidence to back it up. Even still, what he
claimed Flew said does not necessarily equate to having words put in
his mouth:
“This is really Roy’s doing,” he said, before I had even figured out a
polite way to ask. “He showed it to me, and I said O.K. I’m too old
for this kind of work!”
In addition, Glenn Branch claims "In a subsequent letter to the Times,
Varghese quoted Flew as stating: ""My name is on the book and it
represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my
name that I do not 100 percent agree with. I needed someone to do the
actual writing because I'm 84 and that was Roy Varghese's role. This
is my book and it represents my thinking."
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u21484565214t126/
There's a lot of claims flying around. The fact is that for over five
or six years Flew had been claiming deism. Not unusual at his age that
words are hard to get out, being forgetful at times, but to use that
as an excuse by atheists to discredit what Flew had repeatedly said
and written on record is what is really disgusting. I have no money on
this horse, but as Flew once said, follow the evidence wherever it
leads.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominal_aphasia
John Wilkins
<190ee548-9405-47f1...@h27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Mitchell Coffey <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
Flew's Introduction to Western Philosophy, where he named that fallacy
was, and remains, the best entrée into philosophy that I know of. It
would be a great shame if Flew were remembered for that abysmal book
someone else wrote under his name than for the work that went before.
Glenn
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:21:12 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 13, 5:53 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:06:56 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> sorry end to a once clear thinking advocate for reason.
>
> >> >When did it happen to you, Bob?
>
> >> still waiting for a revelation.
>
> >Why blabbler until then, then?
>
> guess you didnt read the NY Times article on flew
>
> no surprise. you seem to be immune to anything challenging your
> beliefs
The NYT article is just a claim, Bob. You seem to believe anything the
NYT prints, if it fits your preconceived notions.
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Apr 13, 6:39 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
no, it wasn't a 'claim'. it was an observation by a reporter that flew
didn't write his book.
you just seem to believe anything the right prints if it fits your
preconceived notions.
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Apr 13, 5:53 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:03:05 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Apr 13, 4:53 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >''
>>
>> >> guess he missed the NY times interview where flew didn't even realize
>> >> he wrote a book saying god exists.
>>
>> >I did too. Got it?
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?pagewanted=5...
>>
>> actually he said he didn't write the book:
>>
>> As he himself conceded, he had not written his book.
>
>Somewhat different from "not realizing" he wrote a book saying God
>exists.
which is why i corrected my statement to say he said he didn't write
the book
not a very good reader, are you? probably accounts for your
creationist views
>
>In addition, Glenn Branch claims "In a subsequent letter to the Times,
>Varghese quoted Flew as stating: ""My name is on the book and it
>represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my
>name that I do not 100 percent agree with. I needed someone to do the
>actual writing because I'm 84 and that was Roy Varghese's r. This
>is my book and it represents my thinking."
>
ah. vargese quoted flew. so instead of accepting the NYTimes
observation of what flew actually said, you take the self serving,
financially interested statement of a guy who ghost wrote a book.
Glenn
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:44:46 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Apr 13, 6:39�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:21:12 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Apr 13, 5:53�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:06:56 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> sorry end to a once clear thinking advocate for reason.
>
> >> >> >When did it happen to you, Bob?
>
> >> >> still waiting for a revelation.
>
> >> >Why blabbler until then, then?
>
> >> guess you didnt read the NY Times article on flew
>
> >> no surprise. you seem to be immune to anything challenging your
> >> beliefs
>
> >The NYT article is just a claim, Bob. You seem to believe anything the
> >NYT prints, if it fits your preconceived notions.
>
> no, it wasn't a 'claim'. it was an observation by a reporter that flew
> didn't write his book.
>
> you just seem to believe anything the right prints if it fits your
> preconceived notions.
Ok, I just observed you beating your wife.
Glenn
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:43:29 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Apr 13, 5:53 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:03:05 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Apr 13, 4:53 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> >''
>
> >> >> guess he missed the NY times interview where flew didn't even realize
> >> >> he wrote a book saying god exists.
>
> >> >I did too. Got it?
>
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?pagewanted=5...
>
> >> actually he said he didn't write the book:
>
> >> As he himself conceded, he had not written his book.
>
> >Somewhat different from "not realizing" he wrote a book saying God
> >exists.
>
> which is why i corrected my statement to say he said he didn't write
> the book
>
> not a very good reader, are you? probably accounts for your
> creationist views
>
mistake is one reason I did ask.
Dude, not physically writing, typing, is not a valid criticism.
>
> >In addition, Glenn Branch claims "In a subsequent letter to the Times,
> >Varghese quoted Flew as stating: ""My name is on the book and it
> >represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my
> >name that I do not 100 percent agree with. I needed someone to do the
> >actual writing because I'm 84 and that was Roy Varghese's r. This
> >is my book and it represents my thinking."
>
> ah. vargese quoted flew. so instead of accepting the NYTimes
> observation of what flew actually said, you take the self serving,
> financially interested statement of a guy who ghost wrote a book.
Didn't say or imply that I did. I said Branch made a claim. Nice
snipping there, Bobo. That actually indicates you can read.
Disgusting.
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Apr 13, 8:21 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
guess you didn't read that that's what flew told the reporter.
SSOOOO...unless i TOLD you i beat my wife, you have a bit of a problem
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Apr 13, 8:24 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:43:29 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >I did too. Got it?
>>
>> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?pagewanted=5...
>>
>> >> actually he said he didn't write the book:
>>
>> >> As he himself conceded, he had not written his book.
>>
>> >Somewhat different from "not realizing" he wrote a book saying God
>> >exists.
>>
>> which is why i corrected my statement to say he said he didn't write
>> the book
>>
>> not a very good reader, are you? probably accounts for your
>> creationist views
>>
>Actually, you "corrected" your statement only after I asked, and the
>mistake is one reason I did ask.
uh no. i recalled the article from 3 years ago. and i corrected
myself.
>> ah. vargese quoted flew. so instead of accepting the NYTimes
>> observation of what flew actually said, you take the self serving,
>> financially interested statement of a guy who ghost wrote a book.
>
>Didn't say or imply that I did. I said Branch made a claim. Nice
>snipping there, Bobo. That actually indicates you can read.
>Disgusting.
yeah. you creationists pretty revolting. apparently if someone pushes
religion for money, you'll believe what they say.
the story of creationism
Mitchell Coffey
It is indeed sad, and possibly an issue that might be taken up by his
heir, if he was taken advantaged of, as appears might be the case.
The issue isn't that he when theist on us, people do that for good
enough reasons all the time; it's just that his conversion to deism
was based on his buying into other peoples' misinformation.
Mitchell
Rodjk #613
So, it shouldn't be hard to point out that evidence then, right?
Rodjk #613
chris thompson
> "chris thompson" <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
And you know this...how exactly?
Chris
Dana Tweedy
> On Apr 13, 3:36 pm, Jason Spaceman<notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
> wrote:
>> From the article:
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Professor Antony Flew, the rationalist philosopher who died on April 8 aged 87,
>> spent much of his life denying the existence of God until, in 2004, he
>> dramatically changed his mind.
>> -----------------------------------------
>>
>> Read it athttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-
>> obituaries/7586929/Professor-Antony-Flew.html orhttp://5z8.info/stealgmailpassword--_t0o8u_friendster-of-sex
>>
>> J. Spaceman
>
> Yep----based on the scientific evidence of IC.
What evidence would that be, Ray? Even if "irreducible complexity"
were to be found, it wouldn't be a problem for evolution. Note too
that Flew never stated he rejected the theory of evolution.
>
> Flew was one of the few honest scholars who meant what he said when he
> said "show me evidence then I will believe."
I also note that you apparently are not one of those. You asked to be
shown the evidence for "mutability" and claimed you'd conceded a few
weeks ago. When several persons showed you just such evidence, you ran
away.
DJT
Glenn
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:46:32 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Apr 13, 8:24 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:43:29 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >I did too. Got it?
>
> >> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?pagewanted=5...
>
> >> >> actually he said he didn't write the book:
>
> >> >> As he himself conceded, he had not written his book.
>
> >> >Somewhat different from "not realizing" he wrote a book saying God
> >> >exists.
>
> >> which is why i corrected my statement to say he said he didn't write
> >> the book
>
> >> not a very good reader, are you? probably accounts for your
> >> creationist views
>
> >Actually, you "corrected" your statement only after I asked, and the
> >mistake is one reason I did ask.
>
> uh no. i recalled the article from 3 years ago. and i corrected
> myself.
Uh, yes, idiot. I saw the mistake, that is why I said I had not seen
it. I didn't say I corrected you, if that is what your damaged mind is
thinking.
>
> >> ah. vargese quoted flew. so instead of accepting the NYTimes
> >> observation of what flew actually said, you take the self serving,
> >> financially interested statement of a guy who ghost wrote a book.
>
> >Didn't say or imply that I did. I said Branch made a claim. Nice
> >snipping there, Bobo. That actually indicates you can read.
> >Disgusting.
>
> yeah. you creationists pretty revolting. apparently if someone pushes
> religion for money, you'll believe what they say.
>
> the story of creationism
I see. Instead of responding to what I said "There's a lot of claims
flying around. The fact is that for over five
or six years Flew had been claiming deism." you snipped it and argued
that I accepted a claim from one person and denied the claim of
another. Then when I confronted you with that, you simply continue to
make babbling noises about creationists. So should I then follow your
example and say your behavior in this thread is "the story of
evolutionism"?
Desertphile
> From the article:
> ------------------------------------------
> Professor Antony Flew, the rationalist philosopher who died on April 8 aged 87,
> spent much of his life denying the existence of god until, in 2004, he
> dramatically changed his mind.
That often happens to people's brains when they get to be 81 years
old.
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Read it at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-
> obituaries/7586929/Professor-Antony-Flew.html or
> http://5z8.info/stealgmailpassword--_t0o8u_friendster-of-sex
>
>
>
>
> J. Spaceman
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
"Lotta soon to die punks here." -- igotskillz22
Desertphile
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 3:36 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
> wrote:
> > From the article:
> > ------------------------------------------
> > Professor Antony Flew, the rationalist philosopher who died on April 8 aged 87,
> > spent much of his life denying the existence of God until, in 2004, he
> > dramatically changed his mind.
> > -----------------------------------------
> >
> > Read it athttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-
> > obituaries/7586929/Professor-Antony-Flew.html orhttp://5z8.info/stealgmailpassword--_t0o8u_friendster-of-sex
> >
> > J. Spaceman
> Yep----based on the scientific evidence of IC.
Really?! WOW! There's funally evidence for IC?! WHEN DID THAT
HAPPEN?! Why didn't he present it to Judge Jones during the ID
Creationism trial for the Dover Area Schoolboard?
> Flew was one of the few honest scholars who meant what he said when he
> said "show me evidence then I will believe."
"Wait until I'm in my 80s, with diminished mental abilities, then
I will believe."
> Ray
Heather L.
>>
>> Flew was one of the few honest scholars who meant what he said when
>> he said "show me evidence then I will believe."
>
But every atheist everywhere would say the same thing and mean it: all of us
have been waiting 2000 years and more for even *the first speck of
evidence*... That's why we're atheists, you mad boob...
And the only reason Antony Flew wasted some of the final, precious moments
of his life on your silly supernatural mythology is that *he was misled* by
*a dishonest evangelical nitwit*...
You idiots have got *nothing* -- not even *honesty*...
HL.
Glenn
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:38:02 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
So I'm a reporter writing a t.o. article, recounting my observations
that you admitted to me in an interview that you beat your wife. "I
beat my wife", said Bob. You either do not respond because you are old
and senile, or have died.
Mike Lyle
> On Apr 13, 3:36 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
> wrote:
>> From the article:
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Professor Antony Flew, the rationalist philosopher who died on April
>> 8 aged 87,
>> spent much of his life denying the existence of God until, in 2004,
>> he
>> dramatically changed his mind.
>> -----------------------------------------
>>
>> Read it
>> athttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-
>> obituaries/7586929/Professor-Antony-Flew.html
>> orhttp://5z8.info/stealgmailpassword--_t0o8u_friendster-of-sex
>>
>> J. Spaceman
>
> Yep----based on the scientific evidence of IC.
>
> said "show me evidence then I will believe."
>
mischief-making minor right-wing jerk; and I didn't like his Missis
much, either.
--
Mike.
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Apr 14, 2:56 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
my only claim was that flew said he didn't write the book
any other words you put in my mouth actually belong to you...you
know...kind of like you guys do when you say the bible is literally
true? and other fables
SkyEyes
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:39:36 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >"chris thompson" <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:372b75fa-80bf-4374...@t17g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
> >> wrote:
> >>> From the article:
> >>> ------------------------------------------
> >>> Professor Antony Flew, the rationalist philosopher who died on April 8
> >>> aged 87,
> >>> spent much of his life denying the existence of God until, in 2004, he
> >>> dramatically changed his mind.
> >>> -----------------------------------------
>
> >>> Read it
> >>> athttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-
> >>> obituaries/7586929/Professor-Antony-Flew.html
> >>> orhttp://5z8.info/stealgmailpassword--_t0o8u_friendster-of-sex
>
> >>> J. Spaceman
>
> >> for doing so.
>
> >I'll give one for him: when he finally realized he was going to die, he
> >simultaneously realized that atheism had been the biggest waste of time
> >imaginable.
>
> guess he missed the NY times interview where flew didn't even realize
I'd love to read this article, but I can't find it in the NY Times.
Wouldya help an old lady out with a link? Thank you kindly.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
SkyEyes
<Emily LaTella> "Never mind!" </Emily LaTella>
Brenda
Steven L.
"deser...@invalid-address.net" <deser...@invalid-address.net>
wrote in message news:oevbs5dv5c7amtp9o...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:36:10 -0400, Jason Spaceman
> <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
> > From the article:
> > ------------------------------------------
> > Professor Antony Flew, the rationalist philosopher who died on April 8 aged 87,
> > spent much of his life denying the existence of god until, in 2004, he
> > dramatically changed his mind.
>
> That often happens to people's brains when they get to be 81 years
> old.
This discussion is getting real close to speaking ill of the dead.
We can debate the truth or falsity of Professor Flew's claims, without
having to resort to personal attacks against a man who is no longer here
to defend himself.
-- Steven L.
Conan the bacterium
It's towards the end of a six-pager:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?pagewanted=5&_r=3
and I find it very, very sad.
Let me know if you need a login.
Conan
Glenn
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:12:38 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
You might look at some of the other numerous things you have claimed,
including the OP "sorry end to a once clear thinking advocate for
reason." Or closer, the above "you creationists pretty revolting.
apparently if someone pushes
religion for money, you'll believe what they say." Even closer, just
above, that I'm a literalist. Tell me again about your only claim.
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Apr 14, 3:14 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:12:38 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> my only claim was that flew said he didn't write the book
>>
>> any other words you put in my mouth actually belong to you...you
>> know...kind of like you guys do when you say the bible is literally
>> true? and other fables
>
>You might look at some of the other numerous things you have claimed,
>including the OP "sorry end to a once clear thinking advocate for
>reason."
which had nothing to do with his conversion to deism. you ever worked
with dying people with alzheimer's? i have.
Or closer, the above "you creationists pretty revolting.
>apparently if someone pushes
>religion for money, you'll believe what they say."
which was a parody of your tin foil hat accusations against me.
>
Glenn
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:17:52 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 14, 3:14 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:12:38 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> my only claim was that flew said he didn't write the book
>
> >> any other words you put in my mouth actually belong to you...you
> >> know...kind of like you guys do when you say the bible is literally
> >> true? and other fables
>
> >You might look at some of the other numerous things you have claimed,
> >including the OP "sorry end to a once clear thinking advocate for
> >reason."
>
> which had nothing to do with his conversion to deism. you ever worked
> with dying people with alzheimer's? i have.
Yep. Yet your position on that in this thread is non-existent. In
fact, you snipped the reference I provided on nominal aphasia. No
interest would be a good guess. And don't forget what you quoted in
the OP:
"Professor Antony Flew, the rationalist philosopher who died on April
8 aged 87, spent much of his life denying the existence of God until,
in 2004, he dramatically changed his mind."
>
> Or closer, the above "you creationists pretty revolting.
>
> >apparently if someone pushes
> >religion for money, you'll believe what they say."
>
> which was a parody of your tin foil hat accusations against me.
>
Not at all. I'm not the one taking sides here. What I said, what you
snipped and didn't respond to, was that a lot of claims were flying
around. I need not accuse you at all, since your words speak for
themselves:
"ah. vargese quoted flew. so instead of accepting the NYTimes
observation of what flew actually said, you take the self serving,
financially interested statement of a guy who ghost wrote a book."
So when Varghese quotes Flew in the Times that isn't an "observation".
but a "financially interested statement", yet when Oppenheimer quotes
Flew in the NYT it's an observation to be used as support for your
tiny little argument.
Who wears the tinfoil hat?
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Apr 14, 5:25 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> which had nothing to do with his conversion to deism. you ever worked
>> with dying people with alzheimer's? i have.
>
>Yep. Yet your position on that in this thread is non-existent. In
>fact, you snipped the reference I provided on nominal aphasia. No
>interest would be a good guess. And don't forget what you quoted in
>the OP:
>"Professor Antony Flew, the rationalist philosopher who died on April
>8 aged 87, spent much of his life denying the existence of God until,
>in 2004, he dramatically changed his mind."
god only knows what you're babbling about. folks as isolated as you
are, who've never seen human suffering of the deepest kind, can only
imagine how sad it is to contemplate any human being facing that
challenge.
>
>"ah. vargese quoted flew. so instead of accepting the NYTimes
>observation of what flew actually said, you take the self serving,
>financially interested statement of a guy who ghost wrote a book."
>
>So when Varghese quotes Flew in the Times that isn't an "observation".
no, it's not. the guy had a financial interest in preserving the
appearance of flew writing the book. you really are gullible
>
Glenn
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:48:22 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 14, 5:25�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> which had nothing to do with his conversion to deism. �you ever worked
> >> with dying people with alzheimer's? i have.
>
> >Yep. Yet your position on that in this thread is non-existent. In
> >fact, you snipped the reference I provided on nominal aphasia. No
> >interest would be a good guess. And don't forget what you quoted in
> >the OP:
> >"Professor Antony Flew, the rationalist philosopher who died on April
> >8 aged 87, spent much of his life denying the existence of God until,
> >in 2004, he dramatically changed his mind."
>
> god only knows what you're babbling about. folks as isolated as you
> are, who've never seen human suffering of the deepest kind, can only
> imagine how sad it is to contemplate any human being facing that
> challenge.
>
refuted that and provided you with other claims you had made, explicit
and implicit, you implied that your OP was about Flew's physical
condition at death, and not about his conversion to deism. That's
clearly false, Bob.
>
> >"ah. vargese quoted flew. so instead of accepting the NYTimes
> >observation of what flew actually said, you take the self serving,
> >financially interested statement of a guy who ghost wrote a book."
>
> >So when Varghese quotes Flew in the Times that isn't an "observation".
>
> no, it's not. the guy had a financial interest in preserving the
>
Not taking sides is not being gullible. The two events are identical,
yet you call one an observation but not the other, on absolutely no
evidence. There is no relevant difference between what Oppenheimer
quoted Flew as saying
�He showed it to me, and I said O.K. I�m too old for this kind of
work!�
and what Varghese quoted Flew as saying
"My name is on the book and it represents exactly my opinions. I would
not have a book issued in my name that I do not 100 percent agree
with. I needed someone to do the actual writing because I'm 84 and
that was Roy Varghese's role. This is my book and it represents my
thinking."
So to sum up what you claim is your "only claim", Flew's death was sad
because he had alzheimer's and didn't physically write a book that has
his name on it. That about it? Or are you going to flip flop around
some more?
Eric Root
> "chris thompson" <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:372b75fa-80bf-4374...@t17g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 13, 6:36 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
> > wrote:
> >> From the article:
> >> ------------------------------------------
> >> aged 87,
> >> spent much of his life denying the existence of God until, in 2004, he
> >> dramatically changed his mind.
>
> >> Read it
> >> athttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-
> >> obituaries/7586929/Professor-Antony-Flew.html
> >> orhttp://5z8.info/stealgmailpassword--_t0o8u_friendster-of-sex
>
> >> J. Spaceman
>
> > Yes, he changed his mind, but never put forth a convincing argument
> > for doing so.
>
> I'll give one for him: when he finally realized he was going to die, he
> simultaneously realized that atheism had been the biggest waste of time
> imaginable.
That can't be it; how much time does it take to not believe
something?
Eric Root
Harry K
>
> - Show quoted text -
Glad to see you can still suprize me. Up to this thread I was sure
you couldn't get any more moronic and then you...
Harry K
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Apr 14, 5:59 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:48:22 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
>> wrote:."
>>
>> god only knows what you're babbling about. folks as isolated as you
>> are, who've never seen human suffering of the deepest kind, can only
>> imagine how sad it is to contemplate any human being facing that
>> challenge.
>>
>You said you made only one claim, the he didn't write a book. When I
>refuted that and provided you with other claims you had made, explicit
>and implicit, you implied that your OP was about Flew's physical
>condition at death, and not about his conversion to deism. That's
>clearly false, Bob.
>>
well, no. you read into a 1 line statement something that wasn't
there. you're welcome to your biases, but don't make them mine.
and you did not 'refute' the charges. i re-read the article and found
my initial claim that he didn't 'reazlize' (sic) he'd written a book
was incorrect. what he actually said was that he didn't write the
book. a far more damning charge IMHO.
>
>and what Varghese quoted Flew as saying
so a paid hack says flew authorized the book and flew wrote it with
him
an objective independent reporter says flew said he didn't write the
book
hmmm...which one is credible? let me think...
>So to sum up what you claim is your "only claim", Flew's death was sad
>because he had alzheimer's and didn't physically write a book that has
>his name on it. That about it? Or are you going to flip flop around
>some more?
looks like you finally got it right. flew said he didn't write the
book. and it's sad that a one noble intellect degenerated under the
assault of age an disease
see! there's hope for you yet. even you can understand things if you
work hard enough at it.
>
Glenn
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:32:55 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 14, 5:59 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:48:22 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:."
>
> >> god only knows what you're babbling about. folks as isolated as you
> >> are, who've never seen human suffering of the deepest kind, can only
> >> imagine how sad it is to contemplate any human being facing that
> >> challenge.
>
> >You said you made only one claim, the he didn't write a book. When I
> >refuted that and provided you with other claims you had made, explicit
> >and implicit, you implied that your OP was about Flew's physical
> >condition at death, and not about his conversion to deism. That's
> >clearly false, Bob.
>
> well, no. you read into a 1 line statement something that wasn't
> there. you're welcome to your biases, but don't make them mine.
More than one line, Bob. It was what you quoted from your OP
reference.
>
> and you did not 'refute' the charges. i re-read the article and found
> my initial claim that he didn't 'reazlize' (sic) he'd written a book
> was incorrect. what he actually said was that he didn't write the
> book. a far more damning charge IMHO.
>
What "he" actually said? Oppenheimer, as I've already posted, quoted
Flew as saying that he OKed the book. There is nothing damning about
that at all. And you haven't provided the slightest bit of evidence
that it is. Your argument is pure junk.
>
> >and what Varghese quoted Flew as saying
>
> so a paid hack says flew authorized the book and flew wrote it with
> him
>
> an objective independent reporter says flew said he didn't write the
> book
>
> hmmm...which one is credible? let me think...
Neither statement is credible, nor are you. The author says Flew
authorized the book, Flew says he authorized the book, no one claims
he physically wrote, or put the book together. The "hack" I assume you
are referring to is the author, who had known Flew for many years. As
far as I have been able to gather, the "objective independent" did not
know Flew at all prior to his interview. You think Oppenheimer wasn't
paid, or that there is no chance that he is just another atheist that
at last resort tried to minimize Flew's conversion from atheism? I
don't think you know shit about the subject.
>
> >So to sum up what you claim is your "only claim", Flew's death was sad
> >because he had alzheimer's and didn't physically write a book that has
> >his name on it. That about it? Or are you going to flip flop around
> >some more?
>
> looks like you finally got it right. flew said he didn't write the
> book. and it's sad that a one noble intellect degenerated under the
> assault of age an disease
>
> see! there's hope for you yet. even you can understand things if you
> work hard enough at it.
>
It is not sad that the book was not physically written by Flew, idiot.
Again, just to give you a hard time with snipping, everyone including
Flew admits he didn't physically write the book, but everyone does say
he authorized it.
It would be sad that what was written about Flew was false. But you
have made no attempt whatsoever to evidence that. All you have is
repeating "he didn't write the book" period. Just like "I saw you beat
your wife" could end "at cards", only leaving the last out.
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Apr 15, 3:08 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:32:55 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> well, no. you read into a 1 line statement something that wasn't
>> there. you're welcome to your biases, but don't make them mine.
>
>More than one line, Bob. It was what you quoted from your OP
>reference.
you're getting tiresome with your goalpost moving. first you objected
to an innocuous statement about the death of an alzheimer's patient.
NOW you're objecting to a mistake i made summarizing the article.
>>
>> and you did not 'refute' the charges. i re-read the article and found
>> my initial claim that he didn't 'reazlize' (sic) he'd written a book
>> was incorrect. what he actually said was that he didn't write the
>> book. a far more damning charge IMHO.
>>
>What "he" actually said? Oppenheimer, as I've already posted, quoted
>Flew as saying that he OKed the book. There is nothing damning about
>that at all. And you haven't provided the slightest bit of evidence
>that it is. Your argument is pure junk.
he 'ok'd' the book? a book he didn't write?
anybody know how to parse THAT bit of doggerel?
>>
>> >and what Varghese quoted Flew as saying
>>
>> so a paid hack says flew authorized the book and flew wrote it with
>> him
>>
>> an objective independent reporter says flew said he didn't write the
>> book
>>
>> hmmm...which one is credible? let me think...
>
>Neither statement is credible, nor are you. The author says Flew
>authorized the book, Flew says he authorized the book, no one claims
>he physically wrote, or put the book together. The "hack" I assume you
>are referring to is the author, who had known Flew for many years. As
>far as I have been able to gather, the "objective independent" did not
>know Flew at all prior to his interview. You think Oppenheimer wasn't
>paid, or that there is no chance that he is just another atheist that
>at last resort tried to minimize Flew's conversion from atheism? I
>don't think you know shit about the subject.
flew said he didn't write the book. but he 'authorized' the book. no
one knows what that means.
Ganesh J. Acharya
wrote:
> From the article:
> ------------------------------------------
> Professor Antony Flew, the rationalist philosopher who died on April 8 aged 87,
> spent much of his life denying the existence of God until, in 2004, he
> dramatically changed his mind.
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Read it athttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-
> obituaries/7586929/Professor-Antony-Flew.html orhttp://5z8.info/stealgmailpassword--_t0o8u_friendster-of-sex
>
Any details why he changed his mind. Again I personally feel most of
the people who play the Atheist role are actually Theist, just that
they all are searching for the truth.
Ron O
wrote:
Someone lied to a poor guy whose mind was failing.
Ron Okimoto
John Harshman
Glenn
Glenn
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 13:39:25 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 15, 3:08 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:32:55 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> well, no. you read into a 1 line statement something that wasn't
> >> there. you're welcome to your biases, but don't make them mine.
>
> >More than one line, Bob. It was what you quoted from your OP
> >reference.
>
> you're getting tiresome with your goalpost moving. first you objected
> to an innocuous statement about the death of an alzheimer's patient.
> NOW you're objecting to a mistake i made summarizing the article.
>
to show that alzheimer's is a relevant topic here?
>
> >> and you did not 'refute' the charges. i re-read the article and found
> >> my initial claim that he didn't 'reazlize' (sic) he'd written a book
> >> was incorrect. what he actually said was that he didn't write the
> >> book. a far more damning charge IMHO.
>
> >What "he" actually said? Oppenheimer, as I've already posted, quoted
> >Flew as saying that he OKed the book. There is nothing damning about
> >that at all. And you haven't provided the slightest bit of evidence
> >that it is. Your argument is pure junk.
>
> he 'ok'd' the book? a book he didn't write?
>
> anybody know how to parse THAT bit of doggerel?
>
>
> >> >and what Varghese quoted Flew as saying
>
> >> so a paid hack says flew authorized the book and flew wrote it with
> >> him
>
> >> an objective independent reporter says flew said he didn't write the
> >> book
>
> >> hmmm...which one is credible? let me think...
>
> >Neither statement is credible, nor are you. The author says Flew
> >authorized the book, Flew says he authorized the book, no one claims
> >he physically wrote, or put the book together. The "hack" I assume you
> >are referring to is the author, who had known Flew for many years. As
> >far as I have been able to gather, the "objective independent" did not
> >know Flew at all prior to his interview. You think Oppenheimer wasn't
> >paid, or that there is no chance that he is just another atheist that
> >at last resort tried to minimize Flew's conversion from atheism? I
> >don't think you know shit about the subject.
>
> flew said he didn't write the book. but he 'authorized' the book. no
> one knows what that means.
I've already provided Flew's response, which explains what that means.
And some people know that authorizing a book but not physically
writing it is not unheard of.
John Stockwell
wrote:
> On Apr 14, 3:36 am, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
> wrote:
>
> > From the article:
> > ------------------------------------------
> > Professor Antony Flew, the rationalist philosopher who died on April 8 aged 87,
> > spent much of his life denying the existence of God until, in 2004, he
> > dramatically changed his mind.
> > -----------------------------------------
>
> > Read it athttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-
> > obituaries/7586929/Professor-Antony-Flew.html orhttp://5z8.info/stealgmailpassword--_t0o8u_friendster-of-sex
>
> Any details why he changed his mind.
Make no mistake, Antony Flew never claimed to have become
a "theist". If you read the article in the Telegraph, you will see
this.
He claimed only a form of weak deism, and that based on
being convinced that DNA had to have an intelligent origin. So,
at most, he may have thought that there was some sort of intelligent
designer responsible for the origin of life, but as far as the rest
of religion goes, he didn't apparently believe in that.
There is more to the story. There is a book that is purportedly
co-authored by Flew, but which was apparently largely written by a
fellow named Roy Varghese. called
" There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His
Mind," So, we don't know how much is Varghese talking and
how much is Flew talking, or how much Flew was influenced by
Varghese.
> Again I personally feel most of
> the people who play the Atheist role are actually Theist, just that
> they all are searching for the truth.
If there were convincing evidence for the existence of some
sort of deity, then most atheists likely would believe in accordance
with the evidence.
It would not be religious faith, it would be
the same sort of belief that we have in atoms or electric fields,
that these things exist because there is repeatable experimental
evidence that show us that they exist. And that we have a
theory that describes the specific testable properties of these
things.
-John
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Apr 15, 3:24 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 13:39:25 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> you're getting tiresome with your goalpost moving. first you objected
>> to an innocuous statement about the death of an alzheimer's patient.
>> NOW you're objecting to a mistake i made summarizing the article.
>>
>I'm objecting to your obvious dishonesty and deceit. Have any evidence
>to show that alzheimer's is a relevant topic here?
yeah. the NY Times article which described flew as being obviously
confused many times.
again, you seem to have no experience with terminally ill people, or
alzheimer's patients at all
>>
>> flew said he didn't write the book. but he 'authorized' the book. no
>> one knows what that means.
>
>I've already provided Flew's response, which explains what that means.
>And some people know that authorizing a book but not physically
>writing it is not unheard of.
kind of makes you wonder:
what was his name doing on it?
Ron O
You could only wish that you had such an excuse.
Ron Okimoto
odin
Now Ron... is that building? ... come on now everyone... everyone...
group hug!
Glenn
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:28:12 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 15, 3:24 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 13:39:25 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> you're getting tiresome with your goalpost moving. first you objected
> >> to an innocuous statement about the death of an alzheimer's patient.
> >> NOW you're objecting to a mistake i made summarizing the article.
>
> >I'm objecting to your obvious dishonesty and deceit. Have any evidence
> >to show that alzheimer's is a relevant topic here?
>
> yeah. the NY Times article which described flew as being obviously
> confused many times.
I've described you as being obviously confused many times.
>
> again, you seem to have no experience with terminally ill people, or
> alzheimer's patients at all
>
You're ill, Bob. That's juvenile.
>
> >> flew said he didn't write the book. but he 'authorized' the book. no
> >> one knows what that means.
>
> >I've already provided Flew's response, which explains what that means.
> >And some people know that authorizing a book but not physically
> >writing it is not unheard of.
>
> kind of makes you wonder:
>
> what was his name doing on it?
Likely Flew wanted it there. And he said so, that it was his book.
Hard to hide that, isn't it.
Glenn
My response was to provoke thought, Ron's was juvenile.
Glenn
words out, although the concept is there inside, and have had problems
with names and titles for awhile. Doesn't mean I'm a patsy. We all
start to fail one way or the other mentally with age. Not all at the
same age, of course. But unless you have good hard stinking evidence
to show an old guy was duped, making claims based on flimsy evidence
is disgusting. To me this is the sad part. Had Flew been quoted by
some idiot as saying that he had returned to atheism I doubt the
atheists would have raised such as stink as they have over him. And
the "didn't write the book" is just a distraction, who gives a hoot?
The issue is, and everyone knows it, is his "conversion" to some sort
of deism, and away from ridiculous atheism.
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Apr 16, 2:49�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:28:12 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Apr 15, 3:24�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 13:39:25 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> you're getting tiresome with your goalpost moving. first you objected
>> >> to an innocuous statement about the death of an alzheimer's patient.
>> >> NOW you're objecting to a mistake i made summarizing the article.
>>
>> >I'm objecting to your obvious dishonesty and deceit. Have any evidence
>> >to show that alzheimer's is a relevant topic here?
>>
>> yeah. the NY Times article which described flew as being obviously
>> confused many times.
>
>I've described you as being obviously confused many times.
says the guy who believes goblins and ghosts are responsible for
earthquakes
>>
>> again, you seem to have no experience with terminally ill people, or
>> alzheimer's patients at all
>>
>You're ill, Bob. That's juvenile.
says the guy who's never worked with the terminally ill yet calls
himself an expert
>>
>> >> flew said he didn't write the book. �but he 'authorized' the book. no
>> >> one knows what that means.
>>
>> >I've already provided Flew's response, which explains what that means.
>> >And some people know that authorizing a book but not physically
>> >writing it is not unheard of.
>>
>> kind of makes you wonder:
>>
>> what was his name doing on it?
>
>Likely Flew wanted it there. And he said so, that it was his book.
>Hard to hide that, isn't it.
yeah. hard to hide everything except one fact:
Glenn
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:41:49 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Apr 16, 2:49 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:28:12 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Apr 15, 3:24 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 13:39:25 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> you're getting tiresome with your goalpost moving. first you objected
> >> >> to an innocuous statement about the death of an alzheimer's patient.
> >> >> NOW you're objecting to a mistake i made summarizing the article.
>
> >> >I'm objecting to your obvious dishonesty and deceit. Have any evidence
> >> >to show that alzheimer's is a relevant topic here?
>
> >> yeah. the NY Times article which described flew as being obviously
> >> confused many times.
>
> >I've described you as being obviously confused many times.
>
> says the guy who believes goblins and ghosts are responsible for
> earthquakes
>
>
> >> again, you seem to have no experience with terminally ill people, or
> >> alzheimer's patients at all
>
> >You're ill, Bob. That's juvenile.
>
> says the guy who's never worked with the terminally ill yet calls
> himself an expert
>
>
> >> >> flew said he didn't write the book. but he 'authorized' the book. no
> >> >> one knows what that means.
>
> >> >I've already provided Flew's response, which explains what that means.
> >> >And some people know that authorizing a book but not physically
> >> >writing it is not unheard of.
>
> >> kind of makes you wonder:
>
> >> what was his name doing on it?
>
> >Likely Flew wanted it there. And he said so, that it was his book.
> >Hard to hide that, isn't it.
>
> yeah. hard to hide everything except one fact:
>
> he didn't write the book
>
I know it's not much use debating you, Bob. I just like to get you to
start foaming at the mouth and making wierd sounds. I figure there's
only a thousandth or so of a percent chance you might go by a mirror
when it happens.
SkyEyes
wrote:
> ... I personally feel most of
> the people who play the Atheist role are actually Theist, just that
> they all are searching for the truth.
And you would be wrong.
Atheists lack a belief in any god because there's no evidence that one
exists.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34g
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Apr 16, 3:58 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:41:49 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> again, you seem to have no experience with terminally ill people, or
>> >> alzheimer's patients at all
>>
>> >You're ill, Bob. That's juvenile.
>>
>> says the guy who's never worked with the terminally ill yet calls
>> himself an expert
>>
>I'm really the most famous brain surgeon of all time. Need a tune up?
how can you operate on something that you, yourself, do not possess?
>>
>> yeah. hard to hide everything except one fact:
>>
>> he didn't write the book
>>
>Except no one was trying to hide that fact, not even Flew.
?? did i say they were? i'm not sure where you're getting your
material, but it's making no sense. probably related to the brain
issue discussed above
>
>I know it's not much use debating you, Bob. I just like to get you to
>start foaming at the mouth and making wierd sounds. I figure there's
>only a thousandth or so of a percent chance you might go by a mirror
>when it happens.
<chuckle> i think the foam you're seeing is the spittle flecked
computer screen in front of you.
>
backspace
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:43:29 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Apr 13, 5:53 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:03:05 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Apr 13, 4:53 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> >''
>
> >> >> guess he missed the NY times interview where flew didn't even realize
> >> >> he wrote a book saying god exists.
>
> >> >I did too. Got it?
>
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?pagewanted=5...
>
> >> actually he said he didn't write the book:
>
> >> As he himself conceded, he had not written his book.
>
> >Somewhat different from "not realizing" he wrote a book saying God
> >exists.
>
> which is why i corrected my statement to say he said he didn't write
> the book
>
> not a very good reader, are you? probably accounts for your
> creationist views
>
>
>
> >In addition, Glenn Branch claims "In a subsequent letter to the Times,
> >Varghese quoted Flew as stating: ""My name is on the book and it
> >represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my
> >name that I do not 100 percent agree with. I needed someone to do the
> >is my book and it represents my thinking."
>
> observation of what flew actually said, you take the self serving,
> financially interested statement of a guy who ghost wrote a book.
NYtimes misrepresented an article Behe wrote on the God delusion,
editing it to such an extent that it amounted to lying.
odin
I hate to nit-pick... but I do not recall anyone claiming that there
was anyone who does give a hoot. To whom do you refer?
bpuharic
i graduated from lehigh's chemistry dept. why not look up where behe
teaches?
i've met behe. i've talked with him.
and, yes, he's a liar.
Glenn
bpuharic started the thread.
Glenn
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:23:34 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>
> >On Apr 14, 5:24 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:43:29 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >NYtimes misrepresented an article Behe wrote on the God delusion,
> >editing it to such an extent that it amounted to lying.
>
> i graduated from lehigh's chemistry dept. why not look up where behe
> teaches?
>
> i've met behe. i've talked with him.
>
> and, yes, he's a liar.
We've all listened to you, and know you are a liar. A habitual one.
Glenn
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:05:50 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 16, 3:58 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:41:49 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> again, you seem to have no experience with terminally ill people, or
> >> >> alzheimer's patients at all
>
> >> >You're ill, Bob. That's juvenile.
>
> >> says the guy who's never worked with the terminally ill yet calls
> >> himself an expert
Ooh, a direct lie. Two, actually.
>
> >I'm really the most famous brain surgeon of all time. Need a tune up?
>
> how can you operate on something that you, yourself, do not possess?
>
I just did. Figure it out.
>
> >> yeah. hard to hide everything except one fact:
>
> >> he didn't write the book
>
> >Except no one was trying to hide that fact, not even Flew.
>
> ?? did i say they were? i'm not sure where you're getting your
> material, but it's making no sense. probably related to the brain
> issue discussed above
>
I didn't say you said they were. YOU said it: Hard to hide everything
except one fact: he didn't hide the book".
That's deceit.
>
> >I know it's not much use debating you, Bob. I just like to get you to
> >start foaming at the mouth and making wierd sounds. I figure there's
> >only a thousandth or so of a percent chance you might go by a mirror
> >when it happens.
>
> <chuckle> i think the foam you're seeing is the spittle flecked
> computer screen in front of you.
>
You are not doing well in the thinking department, Bob.
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Apr 16, 4:44 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
<blush> bet you say that to all the scientists!
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Apr 16, 4:15 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:05:50 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> says the guy who's never worked with the terminally ill yet calls
>> >> himself an expert
>
>Ooh, a direct lie. Two, actually.
nope. an observation.
>>
>> >I'm really the most famous brain surgeon of all time. Need a tune up?
>>
>> how can you operate on something that you, yourself, do not possess?
>>
>I just did. Figure it out.
i just enjoy watching you run in circles.
>>
>> >> yeah. hard to hide everything except one fact:
>>
>> >> he didn't write the book
>>
>> >Except no one was trying to hide that fact, not even Flew.
>>
>> ?? did i say they were? i'm not sure where you're getting your
>> material, but it's making no sense. probably related to the brain
>> issue discussed above
>>
>I didn't say you said they were. YOU said it: Hard to hide everything
>except one fact: he didn't hide the book".
no, he didn't hide the book. he didn't even write it. a conclusion
obvious to everyone who thinks.
the conclusion is obvious as well
>
>That's deceit.
>>
>> >I know it's not much use debating you, Bob. I just like to get you to
>> >start foaming at the mouth and making wierd sounds. I figure there's
>> >only a thousandth or so of a percent chance you might go by a mirror
>> >when it happens.
>>
>> <chuckle> i think the foam you're seeing is the spittle flecked
>> computer screen in front of you.
>>
>You are not doing well in the thinking department, Bob.
coming from a guy who thinks demons cause earthquakes...
>
Ron O
Sorry, I didn't know. All we can do is our best.
You know I don't care about Flew. He likely was duped, and you likely
know it, but it is the same problem that the anti science boneheads
have. You can't con an honest man. Just like the guys that bend over
and take the switch scam once they find out that they were lied to
about intelligent design. Flew stayed out on the edge so long that he
was likely already so far around the bend that he was shaking hands
with the guys that he had a bone to pick with. It likely didn't take
much to fool him with the ID claptrap because those are the types of
arguments that he was likely stuck with to support his own beliefs.
Do you deny that he was misled about the ID junk. It is just scam and
you know it. Even the major ID perps didn't support it when it was
time to put up or shut up. Do you think that Flew was informed about
that?
Ron Okimoto
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Apr 16, 4:35�pm, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
actually it was your lack of reading ability that started the thread.
but, then, if you could read
you wouldn't be a creationist
res ipsa loquitur
Glenn
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:07:30 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
Nope. Just the ones that can be documented.
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Apr 16, 5:48 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
given the fact you're a creationist
and virtually no scientists are creationists...
the conclusion is left as an exercise
Glenn
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:11:30 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 16, 4:15 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:05:50 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> says the guy who's never worked with the terminally ill yet calls
> >> >> himself an expert
>
> >Ooh, a direct lie. Two, actually.
>
> nope. an observation.
>
I've told you that I have experience with some terminally ill, and you
have no evidence that I haven't. They are both lies, flat out.
>
> >> >I'm really the most famous brain surgeon of all time. Need a tune up?
>
> >> how can you operate on something that you, yourself, do not possess?
>
> >I just did. Figure it out.
>
> i just enjoy watching you run in circles.
>
>
> >> >> yeah. hard to hide everything except one fact:
>
> >> >> he didn't write the book
>
> >> >Except no one was trying to hide that fact, not even Flew.
>
> >> ?? did i say they were? i'm not sure where you're getting your
> >> material, but it's making no sense. probably related to the brain
> >> issue discussed above
>
> >I didn't say you said they were. YOU said it: Hard to hide everything
> >except one fact: he didn't hide the book".
>
> no, he didn't hide the book. he didn't even write it. a conclusion
> obvious to everyone who thinks.
A typo, Bob. "He didn't write the book". Those were your words thrown
back at you. No one needs to "conclude" that he didn't write the book,
as everyone says he didn't, including himself.
>
> the conclusion is obvious as well
>
You just said the conclusion was that he didn't write the book. Yes,
it was "obvious".
>
> >That's deceit.
Yes, it is, Bob.
>
> >> >I know it's not much use debating you, Bob. I just like to get you to
> >> >start foaming at the mouth and making wierd sounds. I figure there's
> >> >only a thousandth or so of a percent chance you might go by a mirror
> >> >when it happens.
>
> >> <chuckle> i think the foam you're seeing is the spittle flecked
> >> computer screen in front of you.
>
> >You are not doing well in the thinking department, Bob.
>
> coming from a guy who thinks demons cause earthquakes...
>
Another lie. You really don't mind lying, do you Bob.
Glenn
atheists.
Glenn
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:05:25 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Apr 16, 5:50 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
actually it was jason spaceman
>
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Apr 16, 5:47 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:11:30 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>Sorry, you've never seen me claim to be an expert at anything. And
>I've told you that I have experience with some terminally ill, and you
>have no evidence that I haven't. They are both lies, flat out.
gee. yet you seem unable to comprehend the effects alzheimer's has on
cognition at end of life.
well, no surprise. you probably think alzheimer's folks are possessed
by demons
>> no, he didn't hide the book. he didn't even write it. a conclusion
>> obvious to everyone who thinks.
>
>A typo, Bob. "He didn't write the book". Those were your words thrown
>back at you. No one needs to "conclude" that he didn't write the book,
>as everyone says he didn't, including himself.
too bad it took a NY Times reporter to find it out. strange the author
never told us. almost as if creationists are dishonest, or something
>>
>> coming from a guy who thinks demons cause earthquakes...
>>
>Another lie. You really don't mind lying, do you Bob.
and the difference between that and creationism is?
>
Glenn
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 20:00:06 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
Glenn
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:59:00 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 16, 5:47�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:11:30 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >Sorry, you've never seen me claim to be an expert at anything. And
> >I've told you that I have experience with some terminally ill, and you
> >have no evidence that I haven't. They are both lies, flat out.
>
> gee. yet you seem unable to comprehend the effects alzheimer's has on
> cognition at end of life.
Not at all. And how could you determine that I "seem unable to
comprehend"? You haven't said anything about what effects the disease
has on cognition at end of life. As far as anyone reading the thread
knows, you don't know anything either. Your position is more difficult
than mine on this particular topic, since you have none. You're lying,
plain and simple.
>
> well, no surprise. you probably think alzheimer's folks are possessed
> by demons
Again, just what relevance does this have? Do you have some
information that Flew suffered from Alzheimer's, and what stage he was
in? Sorry, I just don't buy your shit, Bob. As I said before when you
didn't respond and snipped the reference to the malady Flew was quoted
as suffering from, I don't think you know squat.
>
> >> no, he didn't hide the book. he didn't even write it. a conclusion
> >> obvious to everyone who thinks.
>
> >A typo, Bob. "He didn't write the book". Those were your words thrown
> >back at you. No one needs to "conclude" that he didn't write the book,
> >as everyone says he didn't, including himself.
>
> too bad it took a NY Times reporter to find it out. strange the author
> never told us. almost as if creationists are dishonest, or something
>
That borders on the insane, Bob. Really it does, if you really believe
it, and by all accounts you do.
>
> >> coming from a guy who thinks demons cause earthquakes...
>
> >Another lie. You really don't mind lying, do you Bob.
>
> and the difference between that and creationism is?
>
Quit blabbering. I don't think demons cause earthquakes. You don't
even know where you dreamed it up. The lies just unconsciously pop out
of you like sweat.
Ron O
Well, you know that you were duped by the intelligent design scam, so
why would Flew be different than everyone else that got duped by the
scam? Are you claiming that you always knew that the ID perps were
lying about what they had? Heck, even I gave them credit for, at
least, thinking that they had something worth discussing until they
started running the bait and switch on their own supporters, and I
looked back and observed that they were planning the switch scam years
before they pulled the trigger on it. A switch scam that doesn't even
mention that ID ever existed. You can't get much worse than that.
Ron Okimoto
Burkhard
wrote:
> On Apr 14, 3:36�am, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
> wrote:
>
> > From the article:
> > ------------------------------------------
> > Professor Antony Flew, the rationalist philosopher who died on April 8 aged 87,
> > spent much of his life denying the existence of God until, in 2004, he
> > dramatically changed his mind.
> > -----------------------------------------
>
> > Read it athttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-
> > obituaries/7586929/Professor-Antony-Flew.html orhttp://5z8.info/stealgmailpassword--_t0o8u_friendster-of-sex
>
> Any details why he changed his mind. Again I personally feel most of
> the people who play the Atheist role are actually Theist, just that
> they all are searching for the truth.
Absolutely. And I always felt that vegetarians are meateaters who are
just searching for the right beef.
Glenn
You're lying.
> Are you claiming that you always knew that the ID perps were
> lying about what they had?
Where do you find where I might be making that claim? Or any other
about ID?
> Heck, even I gave them credit for, at
> least, thinking that they had something worth discussing until they
> started running the bait and switch on their own supporters, and I
> looked back and observed that they were planning the switch scam years
> before they pulled the trigger on it. A switch scam that doesn't even
> mention that ID ever existed. You can't get much worse than that.
>
I agree you are pretty bad. You and Puharic are much alike.
odin
>
> they invented haggis.
>
> nothing can top that.
Haggis? Nothing can top that? Sheesh... Then you have not tried
Hákarl, have you?
> of course, they did OK with whisky.
Whisky Smischky. Brennivín is the true breakfast of champions.
It says so in the Hávamál (Sayings of the High One... and I do mean
the *High* One)
-Odin
Ron O
You are claiming that Flew was not lied to about intelligent design.
Everyone was lied to about intelligent design by the ID perps. There
may have been some in the inner circle that knew what was going down,
but my guess is that nearly all the ID rubes were scammed to some
degree. Do you deny that?
>
> > Heck, even I gave them credit for, at
> > least, thinking that they had something worth discussing until they
> > started running the bait and switch on their own supporters, and I
> > looked back and observed that they were planning the switch scam years
> > before they pulled the trigger on it. �A switch scam that doesn't even
> > mention that ID ever existed. �You can't get much worse than that.
>
> I agree you are pretty bad. You and Puharic are much alike.-
Can't deny it, just misdirect the issue. Why is that all you can
manage?
Ron Okimoto
odin
And many vegetarianarians are just searching for the right vegetarian.
Glenn
No. ID wasn't even a topic in the thread AFAIK until you made it so,
Picard.
Burkhard
> > >No true Scotsman would invent a fallacy.
>
> > they invented haggis.
>
> > nothing can top that.
>
> Haggis? Nothing can top that? Sheesh... Then you have not tried
>
I thought they were a sort of bodyguard/combatant retainer to the
Scandinavian Lords?
odin
Hakarl used as a bodyguard? Well I suppose that works if you consider
halitosis to be a form of martial arts.
Ron O
You are slipping. What was Flew duped about that you are denying? If
you didn't know Flew was duped by the ID perps about ID what are you
arguing? What do you think that you have been denying?
Ron Okimoto
Glenn
And it appears to have compromised your ability to function. I haven't
denied anything. Questioning, asking for evidence, is not "denying".
Apparently you assume that I deny your imagined implications of the
facts in the case.