Comments by The Reverend Dark
Comment #204217 by The Reverend Dark on July 4, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Txpiper wanks himself blind.
The explanation I accept is creation ex nihilo. I completely understand that this is unreasonable in your view as it lacks method and perhaps mechanism. But I don't see the Big Bang as having those things locked down either.
Well laughing boy; that which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There is compelling evidence for the big bang. What evidence can you provide that points to creation ex nihilo (or more specifically creation via magic-sky-fairy)?
None. Or you would have provided it already.
No, I don't mean the Quran, and if you have ever read it, you'll discover that muslims have no business calling him a prophet because he didn't prophesy about anything. There are some prophetic things in the hadithic literature, but they are nothing like the things in the Bible. Muslims use some Old and New testament prophecies and say that they are references to Muhammed, but these are completely porous claims.
Laughing boy, I love it when douchebags like you start playing the 'my magic book is better than your magic book' game. It stresses that both sides are children engaged in a children's argument. First you must actually demonstrate that your book is actually the inspired word of your imaginary friend (who you must also prove.)
If I had doubts that were nagging me, I wouldn't hang out in a hostile mutual support group setting like this.
Actually laughing boy, it is highly predictable behavior. You scream loudly in hopes of drowning out your own inner misgivings on the particular set of beliefs you are trying to hold true to; much like Ted Haggard screaming out against homosexuality while swallowing massive doses of male genitalia.
So laughing boy, what about the skulls. There is no record of skull morphology changing from pre-flood to post flood configurations. Do you have any explanation for this, or did god just play squishy-squishy with them.
Twat.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Comment #204187 by The Reverend Dark on July 4, 2008 at 10:35 am
This feels germaine to this topic.
Flood mythology; supernatural antichrist; and the willing deception of children by children pretending to be adults.
http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/2008-07-01/index.html
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Comment #204117 by The Reverend Dark on July 4, 2008 at 7:23 am
Txpiper took it in the nuts for the team (the team is all nuts.)
It isn't that hard to separate fact and conjecture Rev, though you might be a little out of practice. As a for instance, you could notice a 3mm variation in finches beaks between wet years and dry years. This would be factual data. But if you use that as supporting evidence that everything from bacteria to broccoli to blue whales descended from a common ancestor by way of accidental DNA replication errors, you are involved in conjecture.
Wow. Run Forrest Run! In drool soaked shoes nonetheless. To tear apart a single one of your examples, let's look at whale evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
We can demonstrate mutation and evolution through natural selection. In the lab. In the wild. We can demonstrate it in the fossil record.
So what evidence for an alternate mechanism can you bring to the table? One that allows for a young earth, global flood, supernatural anti-christ and all the other twattery your espouse?
You seem to think that materialist peers are a scientific supreme court. They aren't. They are just religious materialists, functioning inside the parameters of the faith, and enjoying the prestige and perks that come with being a reviewer.
Hardly faith laughing boy. Evidence. Once again you demonstrate that you don't actually have a fucking clue how science works.
But it really must be uncomfortable for writers and reviewers alike sometimes because they can't really stray too close to some discussions. For instance, they can't get involved in speculation about the intermediate purpose of crucial components of a bio-system.
Bzzt. Thank you for playing laughing boy. The fucking 'what use is half a wing' argument. Try and stay current.
Just about anything they might say about the interim role of a cochlea is gonna sound stupid, so it is better just to stay in the "that's not science" safe zone, and talk in non-specific terms about slight advantages.
Again your ignorance shines forth like a babboon's bum; as you wave the 'half a wing' argument like a fine cigar, when in fact it is a fragrant, easily refuted turd. Neil Shubin's 'Your Inner Fish' is a good place for you to start here when exploring the developement of the ear.
More global flood nonsense. I notice that you did not actually address to point of the record of human skulls and the absence of a transition point from pre flood and post flood morphologies. It is not a point you can address. So you just push on and hope no one notices. Just jam your fingers in your ears and la-la-la your way on in your fantasy-fuelled ignorance. Fucking coward.
I'm convinced that it did. You seem to think that most of the continental earth is covered in river deltas, but too many of the sedimentary formations are just too large, too deep and too homogenous for that to be the case. Plus, I just can't see thousands of hadrosaurs just wandering into a river delta and being silted over. I think the evidence supports a catastrophic flood.
Sorry laughing boy.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
All the evidence is against your head-up arse assertion of the global flood.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Comment #203392 by The Reverend Dark on July 2, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Txpiper surfaced.
Welcome back laughing boy. If it is any consolation you did bring a smile to my face with your latest missive. It is not a nice smile, but that is not the point.
I don't claim superior knowledge in any of the disciplines you list. The things I take issue with are conjecture in my view, not hard facts.
Ooh. All the beavers are not working on the dam are they laughing boy. In a single sentence you admit not having superior knowledge, yet somehow you can claim to identify 'conjecture' instead of 'hard facts.'
Well laughing boy; aren't you special. Short bus special. Jerry Lewis has a telethon for you special. Buy drool proof shoes special.
So you, svelte, beautiful, special, you; now have to put your money where your mouth is, grip your cojones with ruthless abandon, and type (with your non-gripping hand) the appropriate papers and submit them for peer review. Then and only then can your currently baseless vomitting on what is conjecture and what is fact be properly vetted.
Which you won't do.
As you have no evidence.
Just a smile on your face, Jesus in your heart, and your nutsack in your hand.
You just have your creationist twattery, from ice shields, to a supernatural anti-christ, to the global flood of Noah and a young earth.
All of it without a lick of evidence other than your own gibbering dogma.
There are big IQ's with big degrees who do not accept either of those conclusions. Constant appeal to an imaginary consensus and repeated claims that real scientists only think what you think are just weak sister debate tactics in my view.
This is the same view that allows you blithely determine conjecture from fact, despite not knowing fuck all about the subjects? You will of course note that the 'big IQ's with big degrees who do not accept either of those conclusions' that you mention have not seen fit to publish their evidence for an alternate theory to evolution for peer review.
Hardly a weak sister tactic laughing boy. Who are the weak sisters in this particular exchange? The ones who stand by the published, peer reviewed work; or the ones than don't publish, because they know their supposed evidence will not stand up to critical analysis.
So, any thoughts on forensic anthropology, skull morphology and the global flood oh Noah, there laughing boy? Was god playing squishy-squishy with skulls so that all the post flood skulls had the same regional morphologoies as the pre flood skulls.
Or did the global flood of Noah just not happen.
Git.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Comment #203390 by The Reverend Dark on July 2, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Wooter Wootered.
Thanks for your complimentary comments. I wish there were no bad words rule.
Those were not compliments, I noted that you were (and still are) demonstrably a lying, stealing, igorant, little git.
I like your wish that "there were no bad words rule." Carlin wrote and spoke eloquently on there being no bad words, and I quite agree with him on the point. Your 'rule' is just as imaginary as your god, and also demonstrates your staggering lack of creativity.
Wooter continues to spew torrents of shite in a three streamed waterfall of Montezuma's anguished revenge.
Second, my writing and my quotation are all different so what is IQ requirement to notice the difference?
Ah but Wooter, you thieving little sausage, it behooves you to ensure that if you use someone else's work you should acknowledge it. I have pointed out your eggragious plagiarism in the past; and chided you, deservedly, on the poor example that you set for your students by doing so.
While the author at http://www.bibleufo.com/humanbody.htm is almost certainly suffering from rectal cranial insertion his mad-arse ravings should be properly attributed to him. Something you failed to do, and not for the first time. Thief and plagiarist. Contemptible.
If you challenge me I can quote what Darwin says about eyes but man, I will be stealing again. That is smearing. But smearing is a common trait of evolins.
Actually it is not smearing, or more accurately libel, if it would hold up in court. I can demonstrate your plagiarism with multiple examples.
Simply put, once more, you are a thief, a plagiarist, and a liar.
You can twist, turn and wooter out your nonsensical excuses; but the cold, hard, demonstratable, facts remain.
Thief.
Plagiarist.
Liar.
The stench of your actions follows you; a foul miasma compounded by your dearly held, deliberate ignorance.
Git.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
6. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage
Comment #202829 by The Reverend Dark on July 2, 2008 at 3:38 am
Steve Wrote.
So, based on that, can I tell you that you are doing it all wrong. It is far more effective to hold the pointy end and thwack them with the handle thingy.
Bloody Talhoffer fans.
(There are reasons to do so, but I am not entirely convinced they are good reasons.)
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Comment #202199 by The Reverend Dark on July 1, 2008 at 3:07 am
Don't read too much into Wooter's occasional bursts of literary clarity. They tend to be in common usage (and often hillariously wrong), anyone with an even passing knowledge of English would be about to use that particular line of Shakespeare. Very few would use it as inanely, but that is Wooter.
So Wooter, you loathsome little gerbil stuffed rectum. I see that you are back to copying other people's work without noting the source. Your description of the eyes is not your own, but stolen word for word from another site.
http://www.bibleufo.com/humanbody.htm
(Check this site out it is bug-fuck nuts, right up Wooter's alley, without the courtesy of a reach-around)
Wooter you also wrote this.
Even Darwin threw the towel for the eyes creation because it can't be explained by make up stories.
Wooter, I know you have not actually read Origin of the Species; but do not confuse your own deliberate, carefully cultivated, ignorance with reality.
Creationist turds, as they bob and float in the urine stained commode of their own stupidity will always reproduce the following line from Darwin's work.
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.
And then miss the rest; their tiny little brain short circuited by god-gasms. As the bright lights flash before their eyes and their faces scrunch up with that trailer-hitch-losing-its-chrome expression; the rest just passes them by.
Here is the chapter: Skip the first sentence and save your keyboard another soaking.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.eye
Wooter, you are demonstrably a lying, stealing, igorant, little git.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
8. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage
Comment #201839 by The Reverend Dark on June 30, 2008 at 10:02 am
Robert O'Brian noted... badly.
Is Diacanu...
1. Lacking in native intelligence.
2. A vapid atheist.
3. An RD kooja.
Roll 1d4. On a roll of 4 pick two of the above.
Alas; Diacanu's subtle use of the philosopher Carlin is entirely wasted on Robert O'Brian, whose claims of Goedel's argument are about as useful as the proverbial pile of dead rats in a tampon factory.
He then tries to buttress his position with the Identity of Indescernibles and jams his foot so far into his mouth that he is getting toenail scrathes on his appendix.
The identity of indiscernibles does not support your claim, as it offers no evidence, or even path to evidence that your particular imaginary friend, or indeed any imaginary friend exists.
Sorry.
Thank you for playing.
Do you have anything else?
Cheers
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Comment #199708 by The Reverend Dark on June 26, 2008 at 8:15 am
Ratty came back
I was obviously not trying to form a little, simple argument with you because as scientists, you know anyone can do an experiment with two different outcomes and argue their findings to the grave, not what I wanted.
Do you have a crow problem? You seem to have a penchant for strawmen. You demonstrate a very odd interpretation of arguments within the scientific community. If two experiments with identical conditions yield massively different results, the first step is not to argue about the results, but to refine the experiment in order to discover the reason for the disparity.
I wanted to bring-up the notion that scientists and theists, though I love the term 'cretinists'that the lovely people here use, may adopt a theory or a set of datum as truth and defend it much in the same way we are laughing at the religious fundamentalists.
Well Ratty, you will find that beliefs in science are not dogmatically held. They are open for challenge, but that challenge must be made in accordance to the scientific method. Most creationists do not actually bring anything to the table except personal incredulity, or poorly cribbed notes from equally erroneous creationist web-sites.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
10. A War On Science
Comment #199702 by The Reverend Dark on June 26, 2008 at 8:06 am
RationalE checked in with this burning missive
I thoroughly expect this comment to get me removed from this site.
Ouch. Right out of the gate you are demonstrating belief without evidence. Sorry Ratty, you are not Dorothy; you don't need the strawman.
Aren't there similarities between faith and the assumption of theory?
No. A theory, in scientific context of the word is backed up by evidence. Faith requires no evidence - again in the scientific context of the world. You may feel or think that your imaginary friend loves you so huggy-muggy much, but it is not an experiment that can be independently duplicated by a disinterested third party.
Really, don't write me off as some "religious Neanderthal" for suggesting that a man of science would choose a theory with aspects that he cannot explain as a belief.
I was thinking more a nematode worm myself; but you can choose whatever manner of percieved persecution your happy little heart desires.
Theories are only theories until replaced by a better explanation of observable phenomenon (again by making use of the scientific method.)
Understand that above all else, what you call religious zealots come in all shapes and IQ's whether or not you agree with them or their belief; don't let hatred and that eye roll that many of you are doing right now in your office chairs get the best of you.
Oh dear. Someone's persecution complex just went condo. Look Ratty, if you want to be hated and persecuted, you may with to take a more direct path and take a shit on the salad bar or your local restaurant.
Facts fall on both of this line, depending on the source you take side with.
Well Ratty, dear little Ratty (with no disrespect to Mole, Badger or Mr. Toad) would you be so good as to provide a single, verifiable fact that actually demonstrates the existence of your imaginary friend.
Relax, the thought of a higher power isn't weakness and doesn't neccessarily require literal tons to be filled with condescending words in hopes of proving you have control of yourself. You do have control, actually prove something.
Aren't you the patronizing little bastard. Somewhat incoherent, but a patronizing little bastard nonetheless.
Is belief in an imaginary friend a weakness. Of course it is not. Provided that it, you can admit to yourself that your imaginary friend is just that. Enjoy the fantasy.
It is when you believe that your imaginary friend grants authority or physically interacts with the world, well then it becomes a weakness.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Comment #199020 by The Reverend Dark on June 25, 2008 at 4:46 am
Richard Morgan vomitted with sufficient force to hurl a gopher through a stained glass window.
"We can love Him, because He first loved us."
Quick question here Mr. Morgan, are you talking about God, Jesus or a paedophile uncle?
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Comment #198732 by The Reverend Dark on June 24, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Also the conductor
To Thomas the Train Engine
Sniff.. that's not steam
Comment #198645 by The Reverend Dark on June 24, 2008 at 10:44 am
Terrible to fear
That your death might give rise to
Worm cholesterol
Comment #198614 by The Reverend Dark on June 24, 2008 at 10:03 am
Steve,
I don't think it would be too out of place to crack jokes, whether good, bad or utterly tasteless in fond remembrance of Carlin.
While I agree that I initially found the replacable comment harsh, it brought a smile to my face when I remembered Carlin's monologue on dogs (Tippy) and how when one dog died, you went back to the pet shop... Here it is.
You were probably out walking your dog, which is what I'm usually doing. Walking my dog. Cause I love my dog. I love all my dogs. I love every dog I ever had. I remember em all. And I love every one of them. Still love all my dogs, and I've had me a lot of goddam dogs. In my lifetime, I have had me a bunch of different dogs. Because you do keep getting a new dog don't you? You just keep getting one dog right after another. That's the whole secret of life. Life...is a series of dogs. It's true! You just keep getting a new dog, don't you? That's what's good about them. They don't live too long. And you can go get a new goddam dog. Sometimes, you can get a dog that looks exactly like the dog you used to have. Right? You shop around a little bit, and you find a dog identical to your former dog. And that's real handy cause you don't have to change the pictures on your mirror or anything. Right? You just bring the dead one into the pet shop. Throw him up on the counter and say, "Give me another one of them. That was real good." And they'll give you a carbon copy of your ex-goddam dog.
We are all replacable, it does not mean we were not loved.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Comment #198606 by The Reverend Dark on June 24, 2008 at 9:48 am
Marshall notes
As for all the comments imploring me to prove my God. I don't feel like I need to.
This translates as you cannot do so.
You can't prove there is not a God, I can't prove that there is, so at best that is a stalemate.
No. Not really. Shall I explain?
What you call a statement leaves you in a terribly vulnerable position in terms of justification. To accept your particular imaginary friend without evidence is to accept any other imaginary friend without evidence, from the god of the big three montheists, to the FSM, to Bert the Magic Penguin to the Triple Twatted Milf of the DVDVDVDA. To believe in one without evidence is to accept all, equally without evidence. You cannot deny any of these, for to do so is to deny your own imaginary friend.
Now, take the other position. There is no god until proven otherwise. A default negative to supernatural arsewipery. You can, at any time, change this to a belief in your particular imagniary friend, if you can provide telling proof of the existence of that imaginary friend.
This is hardly a stalemate; as your position embraces the automatic acceptance of any imaginary friend, without evidence, and no mechanism to refute any of them.
The atheist's claim that there is no God and you act accordingly. I'm just here to tell you that I think you are missing out on a pretty fulfilling relationship and the fact that I come here might indicate that God hasn't totally given up on you yet!
Now, let's take a look at your above claim in light of your 'stalemate' posititon. You are missing out a pretty fulfilling relationship - in every sense of the word, by not being one of the 10 who might at any moment be in the slick and slippery embrace of the Triple-Twatted-MILF-DVDVDVDA goddess described above. You are missing being led to the the beer volcano and stripper factory of FSM heaven. But don't worry, the TT-MILF-DVDVDVDA goddess still loves you. She love you long time.
Now, I know this might seem jejune, but turn this around and look at it from the perspective of the non-believer. The claims made by the followers of the christian imaginary friend are just as inane as those of the TT-MILF-DVDVDVDA goddess. Life forever, eternal love, talking snake, global flood, etc. Sure you don't get the prehensile clitoris, but this is the god of Saul of Tarsus and Saul was a very repressed little puppy.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
16. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #198179 by The Reverend Dark on June 23, 2008 at 10:11 am
Txpiper drooled
No, I am not original. I didn't write prophecies concerning human history being irresistibly steered towards a conclusion that was forecast hundreds, if not thousands of years ago.
Yes and that forecast has been calling for apocalypse since the prediction was made. Those predictions keep coming up false. You dismiss the previous predictors, but still believe that this time you've got it right. Just like they believed that they had it right. You, in your usual chickenshit way, won't put your money where your mouth is and give a date, despite you claiming that you are seeing the 'signs.'
But the pieces of the puzzle seem to be falling into place rather quickly. It is not a lack of clarity that keeps people from comprehending what is going on. It is strictly ideological discomfort. But that will not make it all go away.
No, it is not an idealogical discomfort. It is that rather more distressing discomfort - well disconcerting to bible-humping idiots like you.
We like to call it reality; and it doesn not include assertion without evidence (the only trick in your limited repetoire)
Oh wait, here you go with some details
Along that subject line, one of the dreadful things that will occur during the end times will be famine.
Yes, famine is a very precise indicator; it is this precision that has made biblical prophesy of the apocalypse such an accurate art. It's about to happen. Maybe not right now. It's about to happen. Oops... later. (rinse lather and repeat) There have been people starving since Jesus. It is a constant, not an indicator.
Humanity has backed itself into a corner with technology to the point where the only thing between urban populations and hunger/starvation is gasoline and diesel fuel.
No transportation is only one element in the chain that has the potential to fail.
The commodity markets are reflecting this right now, and given environmental politics and completely irrational government policies, this will only get worse on an accelerated basis.
That is assertion on your part. Just like your interpretation of the apocalyptics resonate with you at this moment, they resonated with John of Patmos as he wrote them - deliberately pointing to Nero (might have been the mushrooms), they resonated with Luther. That does not grant them any predictive power, and has been demonstrated with the failed predictions by learned scholars over the centuries, those predictions have come up with fuck all.
Now you, svelte, beautiful you, throw your hat into the ring, dance around it, take a shit on the brim and expect people to be impressed, or scared.
Laughing boy, you are trying to convince adults that the predicitons of Santa Claus will affect the stockings hung by the chimney.
It is laughable. As are you.
The issue as it relates to evolution is how that light detection developed. You are still permanently stuck with the ridiculous idea that mutations produced this sensitivity.
Awww, poor little laughing boy, your incredulity is still dripping; as is your demonstrated ignorance of science. I am fully willing to examine, and even accept an alternate theory that better explains observed phenomenon. You don't bring that to the party. You just bring incredulity. No alternate theory. No alternate mechanism. You then compound this with your demonstrated ignorance of science and balls-out creationist nutbaggery (supernatural anti-christ, ice shield, 6,000 year old earth, global flood) - again in these you produce no actual evidence, only your own assertions.
As I have previously noted, you are immune to fact, but you project that outwards. You expect others to sway to your assertion, just as you are swayed by your own assertion.
Nice try. You apparently aren't in touch with agriculture. Cattle would graze through an acre of cultivated grass in a blink and you should be able to imagine how long it would take for "stone-age" farmers to plow and plant an acre of ground.
And you are using the model of more modern architecture and using it erroneously to the archaeological record on the development of agricuture. Early farmers did not plow and plant, these technologies developed over centuries as the move from nomadic to agrarian culture occured.
Once more you stumble, fall and look the twat.
So laughing boy, chew on this (no it is not a free Willy joke that will leave him looking well... Haggard.) Forensic anthropology demonstrates very distinct morphology of the skull, in examining remains from all of the world, there should be a moment where all skulls cease to be distinct and display a semitic morphology; Noah and his boys fucking the planet back to a populated state. Yet nowhere in the archaeological record do we see a period that shifts from one morphology to the other in or around the dates you admit as probably for the flood. We certainly don't see it within the 6,000 YEC timeline.
Now, here is where you can interject some biblical arsewipery (son's of Ham, etc.) if you so choose, because that is the only assertion you can make to make this demonstratable fact line up with your codlings-out-and-proud-of-it vision - unless you just say that as soon as the population made for Asia, North/South America, Australia, etc, god went squishy-squishy with their heads.
Git.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
17. Award-winning comedian George Carlin dies
Comment #197982 by The Reverend Dark on June 23, 2008 at 3:02 am
My first reaction to this news was verbal (figurative, not literal) and exploded outward in a single sylable.
Shit.
After a moment of quiet reflection I expanded on it.
Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker and tits!
A man, who in his way contributed more to our understanding of ourselves than the last 15 popes combined.
Cheers,
Shayne
Comment #197945 by The Reverend Dark on June 23, 2008 at 1:42 am
Clearthinker states without a hint of irony
I'm not sure atheists are smart enough to worry they might lose this argument. They probably think God's non-existence is so self-evident that all they have to do is re-examine the long-settled question to give their fans a refresher.
Just as I am sure you never have to ask yourself about the non-existence of any of the legion of other gods worshipped today, or in the past. Re-examining your belief in your own imaginary friend. Actually I am sure you ask yourself the question, then look at where your bread is buttered and go with the lie you have been pedalling. Your imaginary friend is your business.
Tetra...I agree with your comments on this one. To borrow your language. Regarding the number of books written by the New Atheists, such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and all their spin offs, to refute the Bible, the general dearth of books refuting the Flat Earth hypothesis would seem consistent with your claim.
Sorry David, you lose the gold star for this one, the authors you cite are not refuting the bible, they are refuting the idea of belief without evidence as characterized by religion - not just your festive variation of it. I know, you think your imaginary friend has some sort of imaginary friend primacy, but that is just one more belief that is not backed up by a shred of real evidence.
However, in so doing they are encouraging people to actually think about why they believe, instead of just taking their faith claims as a given. Thinking about why they don't believe can have one of two outcomes:
1. The continue to believe whatever they already believed.
2. They realize that their unexamined assumptions don't stack up.
Thinking about why they don't believe? Evidence my dear David. Evidence. There is no evidence for your god - or any other god. Just the assertions of increasingly desperate people.
So, from our point of view, when an atheist reads these books, either nothing happens, or they become an agnostic.
I don't see much chance of these books reaching across the aisle and convincing many people who are at least selectively rational already to become less rational. But as Richard says, what do I know?
Oh come now David, you are selling yourself short. Richard Dawkins is just one of many people who say 'What do you know?' Your laughable ignorance, outright lies, misrepresentations, and small and petty beliefs have been deservedly belittled worldwide.
Speaking of which, I recently re-read your twattage about the Tsunami on the Freechurch site. I just wanted to share my contempt for you.
http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2005/jan05.htm
In this they reflect our besieged atheistic friends who are becoming increasingly frustrated because their old fashioned modernistic arguments are more and more being exposed for the intellectual limitations they are. Richard Dawkins was quick off the mark '" suggesting that the Asian Tsunami was once again an illustration of the fact that there is no God. In this he was using Darwin’s old argument ““There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the parasitic wasp with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that the cat should play with mice”. Now we before we answer this let us consider its implications. If there is no God and no creator then what we are saying is that this is just the way things are. ‘Mother Nature’ is cruel and vicious. There is no answer '" only despair, death and destruction. But what about Darwin’s argument? He makes one big mistake '" he assumes that the world as it is now is the world as God created it. But that is not the case. When you read Genesis One notice the repeated refrain, ‘And God say that it was good’. God did not create the world to have natural disasters, cancer and death. Something came into the world which has upset the natural order of things and polluted the whole environment. That is why, as Paul tells us in Romans 8, the whole creation ‘groans as in the pangs of childbirth’. We are faced with two choices '" either the world is as it is because that is the way things are, or things are the way things are because sin came in and corrupted a good and perfect creation.
Cutting out your verbal twattage and paring it down the essentials, your gracious take of this can be summed up as "You fuckers brought sin into the world, suffer." Perhaps slightly more belicose, but you are blaming the victims for something they had no part in (the myth of the fall) and stating, without any evidence whatsover, that such things did not exist in your imaginary friend's perfect world.
Contemptuous. Patronizing. Imaginary.
The David Robertson Experience.
Git.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
19. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #197934 by The Reverend Dark on June 23, 2008 at 12:53 am
TXpiper twaddled on his rat-bag visions of the coming apocalypse (hint it is not even breathing hard.)
No, no guesses from me. The quiet, more prudent scholars have never set dates.
The quiet more prudent scholars never set dates? Like Luther, or any of the others of the partial A list of apocalyptics who got it wrong.
Anyone who did this before War 2 just didn't have a comprehensive view of the subject.
Yes and the ones before Nero didn't have a comprehensive view of the subject. Neither did the ones before the black death, or the ones before Tamerlane, etc. The same lame arse excuse trotted out through the ages.
You're amusing, but in terms of the history of fake prophesy, you are hardly original.
More twattage from laughing boy
There was no corn in view when the Neolithic genetic engineers supposedly began their experimentation. This has to mean that many generations were planting and replanting an inedible grass for no reason at all. This is only a little less likely a scenario than DNA copy errors building corneas.
More incredulity there laughing boy, coupled with your usual arrogant ignorance. Tesonite was likely cultivated originally as animal feed, whose potential as a human food crop was realized when domestication of the crop brought about several very beneficial changes to it.
TXpiper and his incredulity about the eye.
Nobody who is thinking straight would say that any protein is not complicated in both form and function. He goes on to blame Behe for making too much of the process he is, by necessity, trying to trivialize:
In terms of biology (not faith based head-up-arse creationist nutbaggery) it is not that complicated. As has been demonstrated to you, multiple times, light detection can be found on single celled creatures.
Well if my claims are wild, you should be able to fall back on your caste of hundreds of thousands of experts and answer the questions I posed about how eye components evolved.
You have alredy been given excellent resources most targetted at the lay person as an audience. A quick trip through PubMed or Nature will provide you considerably more.
But I doubt it would do any good.
The sad, sick, fact is that you are not willing to accept evidence that condradicts your small, parochial world of god and all the nutbaggery that comes with it; from prophesy, to ice shields to a 6000 year old earth, to Noah and his global flood.
Your ability to casually dismiss the sum total of human knowledge if favor of your own blistering, demonstrated, ignorance insulates you.
It is one of the reasons that you do not put out your own theories for discourse and hem and haw about even the most simple questions. You know your own beliefs cannot stand close scrutiny (cough - prophets - cough).
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
20. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #197740 by The Reverend Dark on June 22, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Jethro notes
I could argue that atheism will always fall over into callous inhumanity because that is the essential nature of natural selection.
You could, but you would have a rough go of it in light of recent research (Well not that recent, re-read the Selfish Gene). Reciprocal alturism makes a hash of the 'social darwinism' argument that you seem to leaning towards with your statement.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
21. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #197431 by The Reverend Dark on June 22, 2008 at 3:25 am
Goldy noted.
Uncle Mikey is right here. Any more mixing him with mythological personae may result in a serious sulk!
You may be a Uncle Mikey, but not the Uncle Mikey.
Do you know the difference between good and evil? Is the man being good to the cow? Or evil?
(Okay it is a slightly obscure reference)
Cheers,
Shayne
22. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #197429 by The Reverend Dark on June 22, 2008 at 3:19 am
Txpiper continues his track record of blind stupidity
Domestication of cereal crops is another interesting subject. Supposedly, this happened around 9000 BC, back in Quine's "Stone Age". But it is hard to figure out exactly how this happened, at least for someone possessed with incredulity like I am.
No, it is not particularly hard (said the bishop to the actress) your particular problem is incredulity combined with what could only be described as towering, deliberate, ignorance.
http://www.spelt.com/origins.html
Really? Well could you explain how an "eyespot" would fit on a single cell?
I see that Quine has already provided you with an example. I will expand this slightly with this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protists
I think I'm representing your theory quite well actually. You just don't seem to appreciate what it really demands. At the theory level, mutations and selection are supposed to work hand in hand. But when you really try to apply that idea, it looks stupid. Doesn't it?
The idea is not the one that ends up looking stupid in these exchanges laughing boy. That would be you, svelte, beautiful you, who ends up looking like an utter dunce. Your assertions, such as your laughable one about the advantage of light sensitivity are inane, and then you double them up by your ignorance of single celled organisms with the ability to detect light.
You don't exactly have a great track record there, and that is just your last two posts.
I was going to take another piss all over your flood theory, but I will save that for another time. Here's a few keys words for you archaeology, forensic anthropology, skulls.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
23. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #197304 by The Reverend Dark on June 21, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Ah TxPiper back with more inanity
I've already told you twice that I'm good with that range. I know the total of years from Adam to the flood, but nobody knows definitively how much time has elapsed from the flood to right now. If my expectation conclusively doesn't work for some reason, big deal. My eschatological views might hang on the date of the flood to some degree, but the creation/evolution debate does not.
So if you add the timeline Adam to Noah to the uppermost date of this timeline, you get 4,105 BC. Well after the domestication of the dog, sheep, goat, pig, cow, cat, chicken, donkey, cereal crops, bottle gourds etc. etc.
No archaeological evidence supports a world wide flood in this time frame. We have records of civilizations that cruised right on through without noticing a year under the fucking water (and the other tribulations associated with the flood myth.)
No tooth fairy, no Santa Claus, no Easter Bunny, no Uncle Mikey and no global flood.
Grow up.
I could be wrong. I'm still a lone wolf on the ice lens idea. AIG, ICR and others all reject that idea.
The term lone wolf, while romantic and somewhat is not particularly accurate. Crazy, deliberately ignorant Nut-bag who cannot do simple math would be more accurate. I think the only two heads of knuckle that still cleave to the ice shield are you, and Kent Hovind. Such excellent company and a similar command of the physical sciences. I only hope that your own taxes are in proper order.
Txpiper's arsewipery concerning the eye
"Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator."
How does that work? What tiny advantage would one blind creature have over another for having a light sensitive spot on its skin? Isn't light sensitive skin generally considered to be a disorder?
Did you stand in the line for the stupid pills or is this just natural talent? No really laughing boy. Serious as a heart attack here. The first eyespots were on unicellular organisms, allowing them to locate light and move towards it, aiding photosynthesis. This is a huge fucking advantage.
"Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera."
Random changes deepened the pit? Caused by a beneficial DNA replication error that just happened to zero in on the light sensitive patch?
Mutation caused the change. Mutation caused several changes, but the beneficial ones were selected for. This is fundamental evolutionary theory and your are either deliberately misrepresenting it, or just don't understand it.
It did? All ten layers, with a 120 million rod cells and 6 million cones? How would you characterize the mutations that produced the three different cone types that respond to different wave lengths so that you can see in color? Were those all produced by a general mutation or were they separately installed?
Back to argueing from incredulity - though in truth - you've never actually left incredulity.
One of the excellent things about studying the eye in evolution is that we can locate extand examples of nearly every single fucking stage, and observe their function. From light sensitive spots, to recessed spots, to simple pinhole camera eyes and well beyond.
But that is if the dating is correct. I've also stated that the dating game is loaded with bias, assumptions and precedent dates, which could easily be erroneous.
You've stated that. You've also stated that you support a young earth and the ice shield theory. You state from ignorance and you state from incredulity.
Do you really expect people to take you seriously at this point? As if your arguments, such as they are have merit?
You are a jokeshop of creationist ideals, wrapped up in an ego that is incapable of searching inwards. You have to be right, and yet, when the metal hits the meat you cannot back up your position without either claiming incredulity, or trying to disparage accepted, tested, duplicatable, peer-reviewed science. I say disparage instead of disprove as you are all talk and no action. If you were truly dedicated you would be submitting your alternate theories and explanations for peer review.
I've also noted that I adopted the YEC position in acknowledgement of the fact that a case can be made for an old earth, and that for theological reasons, I believe in a theoretical six thousand year term for human history. Others creationists do not accept this limitation. I could be wrong, but since we are all looking down a prophetic gun barrel, I don't think so.
We are all looking down a Prophetic gun barrel? That's not a royal we laughing boy, but if you wish to pull a Kurt Cobain, please ensure that you stand behind an appropriate wallpaper pattern for maximum effect. You and the rest of the loathsome hypochondriac, end-of-days lot have been poncing about with different dates for the end of time. Each time the date has passed with nary a hiccough, until the next date comes up. Which also passes without event.
Silly men and women with a silly, iron-age, apocalyptic religion.
Git.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
24. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #196846 by The Reverend Dark on June 20, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Hey laughing boy, good to see you back. You still have not answered this question, upon which all your claims rest upon. I shall reproduce it here in case it has been replaced in your mind by awareness of sound and light and perhaps big bird.
I appreciate that you are answering, but in doing so You are a little like trying to nail down jello (you can do it, but the circumstances have to be carefully controlled.) You do realize that you posted a contradictory answer here. You don't know the date, but are good enough with the AIG's date.
I take it your first statement is a matter of precise timing (The flood took place on October 23rd, at 4:30pm EST.) rather than a more general statement. This is quite important in the context of the question, as any analysis of your claims to a global flood must start with a date range of the event that you are willing to stand behind.
Would you say within 100 years on either side of the AIG is an accurate representation as to when you think the flood took place? Say between 2,249 BC and 2,449 BC?
This is rather important, so be a chirpy little chappie and answer the question rather than try and change the subject.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
25. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #196330 by The Reverend Dark on June 19, 2008 at 4:47 pm
haven't eaten for about 16 hours
I wish I could do that, then maybe I'd occupy less space in the universe....
Eating less doesn't really work; starvation binges are worse; eat less (and better) exercise more.
I am in the process of going from fat sarcastic bastard to less fat sarcastic bastard. Forty pounds so far.
While my martial training is great, it is not sustained enough to be truly effective for weight loss. My personal bette noirs in this case have become the treadmill (with a pod full of lectures) and the weights (more lectures) - Lectures and Black Jack Justice from www.decoderringtheatre.com
It is a long bloody haul though. Learn to love fruit and veg.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
26. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #196118 by The Reverend Dark on June 19, 2008 at 10:17 am
Tris notes
I am sure that you are going to expound at great length on my ignorance, but I don't quite get where you are going here?
How does any of the above falsify alien life? Just because you are able to demonstrate that the personal ministrations of a team of alien proctologists are fragments of the hillbilly psyche does not constitute the falsification of extra-terrestrial life.
Neither does the existence of organic compoun ds in space.
No, your questions were put forward in good faith, so I am not trying to take the piss here.
I was being somewhat glib in falsification of alien life; fuzzy pictures and starfish love from beyond the stars nothwithstanding. Organic compounds in space were presented as evidence for, not against the possible existence of extra-terrestrial life.
I am not entirely sure as to where you are going with this, but perhaps I can address what appears to be the direction. You can postulate aliens. You can postulate god. When it comes down to moving this to a hypothesis, god falls away, as the required complexity to produce god is way too high. When you examine the hypothesis of alien life, you can point to a simple origin, much like our own, demonstrate the presence of the required chemistry in certain environments, and make tentative predictions as to where you might find further evidence.
I agree that they have not come up with anything to date. I am also quite happy to agree that the odds of them finding something are becoming increasingly remote. That does not obviate the question though of "what will the scientific response be if they ever *did* actually find something that could be demonstrated to be irreducibly complex"?
That would mean the mechanism that produced it is not completely understood. Saying it is irreducibly complex is to claim nothing, to offer no explanation.
Again, I agree with you, but ID does not necessarily imply a deity - or even a specific deity (Yaweh for example). The question I ask is what will the consequences of an irreducibly complex structure imply for science as a whole?
Okay, I'm going to take issue with part of this first. Intelligent Design was a deliberate strategy by creationists to insert their greasy biblical choads back in the US public school system. Period. Full stop.
You could claim intelligent design was aliens, atlanteans, gods, monsters, fairies, or the Latex triple-speed vibrators of planet Knickers. In all cases, it is not sufficient to show a complexity you do not understand, you must also be able to demonstrate the intelligent designer, and the mechanism they used. If you cannot do that, you cannot claim irreducible complexity.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
27. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #196050 by The Reverend Dark on June 19, 2008 at 8:49 am
Tris Noted.
I am note sure I entirely agree with this. The hypothesis of extra-terrestrial life is a cannot be falsified without a rigorous search of every body in the universe - an impossible task. SETI is, however, a valid scientific pursuit.
Sure alien life can be falsified; it has been done through the ages with aluminum pie plates, frisbee's, claims on non-consensual rectal invasion without the courtesy of a reach-around etc. As a hypothesis (not a theory) it stands out very well, as we can demonstrate the presence of organic compounds in space.
If any of the SETI initiatives pick up a signal encoding an alien soap-opera, the hypothesis will be confirmed.
You don't even have to think that big. There are a number of evidences that could potentially be found on Mars following the evidence of water there.
In a similar manner, the ID'ers are searching for some form of positive evidence. in their case, they seem to be focussing on irreducible complexity. If an ID "researcher" were to actually discover an irreducibly complex structure, their hypothesis will gain some scientific credibility.
The not so nice answer:
Your above statement is bullshit.
The nicer explanation.
Not particularly, no. ID proponents (and their loathsome creationist kine) such as Behe have been putting forward examples of 'irreducibly complex' forms for some time now, only to have each and every one demonstrated to have a natural explanation.
ID is saying 'we don't know, god did it.' It is not an explanation of anything. The only way you could prove ID is to prove the existence of the god (to call a spade a spade) and subsequently demonstrate their specific, deliberate involvement in the creation of that structure.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
28. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #195956 by The Reverend Dark on June 19, 2008 at 5:55 am
Cartomancer in a feat of keyboard prestidigitation noted.
I think the dear Reverend Dark has outdone himself with the queasiness-inducing invented deities this time. A truly remarkable example of the art.
Thank you, I hope the nausea was tinged with a bark of helpless laughter, the result of which sent the classic British breakfast in a graceful arc outwards, or perhaps two slightly choking spurts, one from each nostril.
But I digress.
As proud as I am of this accolade, I feel it only honest to note that my invented gods are nowhere near as nausea inducing as the gods of the desert; the imaginary friends of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions.
Sure the crowded, triple-twatted, goddess with prehensile clitorises twisting and turning like juice-slippery tentacles in a naughty anime is an odd image, but in terms of outright nausea it cannot being to hold a candle, lamp, spotlight, lighthouse or high powered military laser to the vomit inducing imagination needed to create the god of the big three monotheisms.
Now the more cynical among you might note that this god is not particularly imaginative, and you would be right. A tribal god created in the image of a grand tribal chieftan and then written with larger and larger brush strokes as our knowledge of the universe expands ever outwards. No, in that the primary god of the big three monotheisms is not particularly creative as a construct.
What is creative is the level of queasiness-inducing acts attributed to this god. From the plagues of Egypt to wives and daughters handed over to rapists, to the instructions for what to do to a conquered people, an even casual perusal of the Torah, Koran or Testaments is enough to make your oatmeal hit the wall with sufficient force and gusto to reguritavely replicate the more minimalist works of Jackson Pollock.
Cheers,
The Reverend Dark
29. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #195947 by The Reverend Dark on June 19, 2008 at 5:16 am
Repreived the Git begged humbly to share his overwhelming devotion.
Before I leave, do any of you have any prayer requests? My group is praying for your repentance and salvation
Well Sunshine, I am so very happy that you have found a social outlet that allows you to reinforce your particular delusions and at the same time indulge in grotesque, superiority, fantasies that place your Jesus loving arse at the acme of the pyramid of sweaty, sandy, messiah action.
You could pray for my soul, but first you would have to prove the existence of the immortal (or any) soul, something you and your loathesome ilk are incapable of doing. Then you would have to prove the efficacy of prayer in answering the specific request that you are making. Again, the faithful cannot, and despite several excellent studies, have not demonstrated that prayer works.
So you are wasting your time at a circle jerk. Well... not really. At least after a circle jerk you have something to show for your efforts.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
30. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #195617 by The Reverend Dark on June 18, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Well Received the Git is back.
Sunshine, I persused your lovely link. The first thing that stands out is the flat out lie that intelligent design is a theory. It simply is not. It is not even a hypothesis, and as the Dover trial rather neatly demonstrated, on par with astrology, tarot reading and all other manner of arsewipery.
I notice that you have not yet presented your evidence for special creation.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
31. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #195477 by The Reverend Dark on June 18, 2008 at 9:46 am
Jethro asks
I agree with the power and the elegance of evolution, and I don't feel any need to defend the tendentious film 'Expelled', the dogma of creationism or even ID which seems to me to be impossible science.
What I don't get is why I have to choose between science and faith. I think I can have both - apart from apparently on this thread.
Jethro, you do not have to choose between science and faith. You can opt science, you can opt for faith, you can opt for both. You can embrace faith. You can even take faith roughly from behind without so much as a cry of 'brace yourself' (though if Faith is capitalized, you may wish to discuss it with her first.) Your faith, as a personal construct, is yours.
Now having said that, if you wish to enter into an argument concerning, let's say the origin of life of earth, having faith, in whatever fashion you have chosen, is simply not enough. You cannot say 'it is so because my faith says it is so.'
That is simply not an argument, it is an assertion on the part of you that your faith, whatever it might be, trumps evidence.
You cannot attribute anything to a god (the christian god, FSM, Bert the Magic Penguin, or Theresa the Triple-Twatted DVDVDVDA Mother) if you cannot first demonstrate the existence of that god and then demonstrate their hand, noodly appendage, flipper or slippery, prehensile, clitoris was the guiding force.
Faith is not enough in such an argument; you need evidence.
So, you do not have to choose between faith and science, but have to recoginize the limitations that faith brings to any argument you choose to have on the subject.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
32. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #194878 by The Reverend Dark on June 17, 2008 at 11:01 am
Recieved the git
Have you read the papers?
Yes Sunshine, we even laid them out on the floor for you, but you decided to defecate, urinate and reguritate here instead. Bad little boy. Time to rub your nose in it.
If you admit defeat, in that Evolution theory is dead, you are left with only one choice. A designer/creator. It's that simple. The end. What don't you understand about this?
Well besides the observation that your ability to use logic is on par with the ability of a Boulengerella Maculata to use a bicycle for its intended function, or Steve Seagal to pass by a cheeseburger.
You are saying; if theory A is wrong, theory B, for which there is not evidence, must be correct. Not even considering the merits of theory B.
That is like saying that if you don't like vanilla icecream, then you must like chocolate.
In other words, your argument is that of a sub-moron. Svelte, beautiful, moronic, you.
So, what you have to do is lay out the case for creationism by your particular magical, imaginary friend. Pretend you are in a court room, doing something other than drooling on the floor and rooting about in your nose for the magical green goblins to show proudly to your magical sky fairy friend.
Present your case for creation.
I don't think you will, you are all smoke with not a lick of fire to back it up. A pissant little theist who tries to drown out the gibbering murmurs of his own doubts by screaming his putrid, failing faith at the top of his voice.
I would say that you are beneath contempt, but contempt has standards, and you don't even rate that highly.
Sunshine, you actually subtract from the sum total of knowledge in the world.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
33. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #194806 by The Reverend Dark on June 17, 2008 at 9:47 am
Recieved the Git noted.
Now that you all had some time to think about what I have presented, are there any questions you would like to ask me in regards to Creation. Or should I have you educate yourself like you asked of me?
Sunshine, you have not yet presented your case, please do not try and push the reset button.
Cheers,
The Reverend Dark
Comment #194756 by The Reverend Dark on June 17, 2008 at 8:36 am
In Bultmann's day these stories were considered legendary because of the supposed influence of Greco-Roman mythology on the gospels, but scholars today realize that this influence is virtually non-existent.
I think the phrase 'fuck you in the neck motherfucker' is probably adequate in dealing with the lie you are trying to foist off here. The cults of Isis and Mithras were quite active in the time of the early evangelism, and their influence and parallels cannot help but being seen in even a casual perusal of the christian mythology.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Comment #194733 by The Reverend Dark on June 17, 2008 at 8:10 am
Ketch missed and took one in the face
It is a common known fact that the majority of skeptics and theologians alike maintain that the Gospels are an accurate historical account of the man, Jesus.
This is what is commonly referred to as a lie.
In fact, the Gospels have undergone more scrutiny than any other historical record from around that period. Other records from that time period are accepted without doubt to be accurate as should the Gospels.
I can't think of any document from that period, that is widely accepted as 'fact' that deals with the plainly supernatural. Well save for the drama and plays or course. Which are plainly not fact.
Even if you don't believe that Jesus is God, to say that you doubt He even existed shows that you don't have a full knowledge of this piece of history.
Well Ketch, I do have a significant knowledge of that period and the actual existense of Jesus can be actively challenged, both in what is written about him (after his ministery) and also what was not written about him by contemporary historians in the area, such as Philo, whose surviving works do not mention Jesus. The events surrounding the ressurection as noted in the gospels were not the sort of thing that could be readily missed. Darkness, rending of the veil, the fucking dead rising twice to stagger into town and spread the good news.
And as far as miracles go, if you believe God exists, then you have no problem with believing He can perform miracles, either as a man or as God in heaven. But for the sake of argument, let's pretend I don't know God exists… is there proof Jesus performed miracles. Yes. I already commented earlier on why I believe the resurrection occurred, one of the greatest miracles, so I will comment on other evidence. The fact is that most New Testament critics today admit He performed what we would call miracles
Any one of which could be readily duplicated by Penn and teller.
Sorry Ketch, but you're shooting blanks here.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
36. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #194339 by The Reverend Dark on June 16, 2008 at 3:57 pm
BillySands notes with Gordon Ramsay gusto
Paedophagy is natural too - are you endorsing that?
Why do I feel a Swift joke coming on?
I think that would depend on the variety of dipping sauces available.
Cheers,
Shayne
37. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #194327 by The Reverend Dark on June 16, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Received the Git made this perplexing statement.
What do all atheists scream in the time of danger?
Funny, I scream to let my opponent know just how much danger they have landed themselves in. The voice is a weapon. As an added bonus, this technique works in the written word as well, it is often called writing at the top of one's voice. The trick is to do so without resorting to the banal use of all caps.
So Sunshine, you rather yeasty stain on the maxi-pad of life, let's take a look at the virulent lies that spew from your lips like liquified burritos from the south end of a northbound tourist suffering in the grip of bad tequila.
First there is your claim about Jesus and miracles
There are plenty first hand accounts of Jesus and his miracles. Show me first hand accounts of any disputing of Jesus and his miracles.
As has previously been pointed out to you, there are no historical, first hand accounts of Jesus. Let alone his miracles. The gospels were written well past Jesus's supposed ministry, and it is almost certain they were not written by his disciples. What is even more damming, is that there were several contemporaries historians in the ares (Philo leaps to mind), who did not mention the death and subsequent resurrection of Jesus. Now, this in itself is not proof; but the sky darkening, the veil rending and the fucking dead bodies hauling out of the graves to go shambling into town, twice, is the sort of thing that gets noticed.
Provided it happened.
Which it almost certainly did not.
Then again it is not about evidence with you is it laughing boy? You have no evidence for your god.
You have no significant education on evolutionary theory. That much is obvious from your posts.
Oh and look, idiocy and homophobia.
Yes, same-sex relationships are part of society. This does not mean it is good for society. You need help.
Yes there appears to be an infestation of self-righteous, judgemental, creationist dick-weeds.
God does love all.
Except for those he damns to hell, or has killed, or those who upset his chosen so he sics bears on them, or those who eat shrimp, work on Sunday...
Nice god there sunshine. Good thing he's imaginary, and whoever thought him up didn't have much of an imagination.
It is your actions in which he hates. It is not natural.
Actually sunshine, it is, homosexuality is a common, observable phenomenon in the animal kingdom. Glad to see that your lack of education is still revealing itself in new and predictably stupid ways.
Can you breed with this person? Is this why you have been denying the Lord? Just ask him for guidence and clarity.
Why anyone should consult your imaginary friend as to what goes on between two consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom, let alone ask him for tips and pointers. If you are going to ask an imaginary friend, I would reccomend one of the sexy specialists from the Hindu pantheon, or perhaps Zeus - though I find the advice 'Dress like a swan to get chicks' suspect.
He will show you the way and help you heel from your unnatural desires.
Help you heel? Are you suggesting that Steve and his partner are playing games that involve leashes and rolled up newspapers?
Well glad to see your fantasies played out; though perhaps this is not the forum you should be at. Bad little theist, you just pissed all over your cornflakes. Again.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
38. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #194163 by The Reverend Dark on June 16, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Concerning Recieved the Git's latest post.
Fucking creationist arsehole liars.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html
One thing to note Received, you genital scab of unknown origin; try not to post anything that is clearly beyond your demonstrated abilities. The nature of the content is clearly outside of your demonstrated knowledge, hence copied from a creationist web-site, and therefore highly suspicious.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
39. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #194130 by The Reverend Dark on June 16, 2008 at 12:56 pm
KardaShovel.
I dunno... it's possible, but it seems a bit of a coincidence that cultures on five continents would all choose the same type of disaster to exaggerate. Why not fire, or drought?
Not particularly. You could call it coincidence that almost all cultures have a creation myth. What a coincidence. The reason flood myths get a lot of press is that they are inevitably pointed to (mostly by creationist nut-bars) in an attempt to support the biblical; even if they are not key elements of the mythology, as they are in Christianity.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
40. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #194110 by The Reverend Dark on June 16, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Received the Git opened up his own personal brand of stupid and took a big swig.
Good Day. I was thinking. It is becomming very expensive to travel these days. Has any headway been made in science which can decrease the time for Macroevolution? Just think how great it would be if we could all grow wings and fly.
It is a good thing that evolution does not work the way you think it does, or you would be the first window based fatality. Being too stupid to recognize the window for what it is.
Splat.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
41. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #194108 by The Reverend Dark on June 16, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Karda notes
It is noteworthy that many cultures around the world have flood myths. I suspect that the end of the last ice age is responsible for this phenomenon.
It is more likely to be attributed to the regular flooding of rivers, etc. Floods happen all the times, stories are told about floods, hyperbole takes over.
Then twats believe in the stories, even when they (the stories, not the twats) are magnified to...stupidity and beyond!
Cheers,
Shayne
42. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #194038 by The Reverend Dark on June 16, 2008 at 10:04 am
Okay, if Diacanu gets to be Queen (Queen the band, not the Queen); I'll add my best Brian Blessed.
ZARA'S ALIVE!
Cheers,
Shayne
43. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #193814 by The Reverend Dark on June 16, 2008 at 4:30 am
Don't listen to Moroni, last time he showed up he supposedly convinced his prophet to read out his gospel with his head stuck in a hat (or behind a curtain.)
44. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #193804 by The Reverend Dark on June 16, 2008 at 4:08 am
Steve noted plumbingly
So, there is another of txpiper's bright ideas down the toilet.
It isn't that the ideas are in the toilet, that much is obvious. It is that he reaches into the smeared bowl, hauls them up and proudly waves them about screaming 'Behold creation!"
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
45. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #193771 by The Reverend Dark on June 16, 2008 at 3:04 am
TxPiper gyred and gimbled in the wabe (rumour of outgrabe are exagerated)
You make it look like you are accepting the date, but leave yourself an out through reinterpretation of of the original date of creation.
No, I just know the distance in years from Adam to the flood. I don't know the date of the flood.
Is a date of approximately 2,349 BC an accurate representation of when you think the global flood of genesis took place?
I already answered this when I said "I'm good enough with AIG's date."
I appreciate that you are answering, but in doing so You are a little like trying to nail down jello (you can do it, but the circumstances have to be carefully controlled.) You do realize that you posted a contradictory answer here. You don't know the date, but are good enough with the AIG's date.
I take it your first statement is a matter of precise timing (The flood took place on October 23rd, at 4:30pm EST.) rather than a more general statement. This is quite important in the context of the question, as any analysis of your claims to a global flood must start with a date range of the event that you are willing to stand behind.
Would you say within 100 years on either side of the AIG is an accurate representation as to when you think the flood took place? Say between 2,249 BC and 2,449 BC?
Not really. Lots of suckers and charlatans have definitely been involved but there have always been reserved students who recognized that a list of things would have to be in place. Isaac Newton is attributed with predicting that:
I'll go with an abbreviated list here
Aah, suckers and charlatans. Would that include the biblical account of Jesus claiming it would happen within the lifetime of his contemporaries. This is not unusual as the apocalyptics were pretty adamant about sooner rather than later. Sextus Julius Africanus was of the opinion that it would occur in 500 BC (later revised to 800BC). Bishop Gregory of Tours pinned his Jesus humping hopes on the period between 799 and 806AD. Pope Innocent III demonstrated that fear of Islam is nothing new, saying the apocalypse would show up 666 years after the founding in 1186. Archdeacon Martinek Hausha, 1420. Bishop Frederick Nausea in 1532. Martin "Nailed in to the church door" Luther said no later than 1600 BC.
Useless suckers and charlatans to a man, and not a serious student among them; and this is only part of the A list for apocalyptic predictions.
Similarly, no secular historian who was contemporary with Scofield, would have forecast the reestablishment of a modern Israel some 30 years and tens of millions of War Two casualties later. But Israel is the protagonist in Ezekiel's prophecy. In the context of those chapters, Ahmadinejad's vitriolic madness, and Russian collusion with him makes some regrettable sense.
Well I think you can add another sucker and charlatan to the list. Nice to see that some christian traditions, specifically faffing off about the end of days, are being maintained.
Oh no, they have not. The problem with the explanations for how eyes formed, which are as lame as the one I quoted for the ear, are enough to make adoring fans give up.
Back to assertion without evidence there; especially your baseless 'adoring fans'remark.
You can't explain any biological feature without violating one of your premises, which is that every detail served in some alternate capacity till the whole system was integrated and functional. What did the optic/auditory nerves do while they were waiting for accidental DNA replication errors to produce everything else?
Sigh. Like explaining dry sheets to a bedwetter who savors the temporary warmth. Eyes started out as simple photoreceptors, recessed eyespots, etc... this is very well documented. Here is a nice start; it is pitched at a younger audience, but should cover things off nicely for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOtP7HEuDYA&eurl=http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Rain was not the significant contributor in my view. Underground reservoirs were the larger source, but I think an ice or ice crystal canopy was involved. I accept this as a possibility for several reasons. I'll explain why after you've made up your own ideas about the flood and rejected those ideas.
Holy fucking Hovind Batman! Explain away laughing boy, this is going to be great for a laugh. To start with, how thick was the canopy? How far up was it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvprBLhJx_o
Laughing boy, you are now getting into tin-foil hat territory.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
46. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #193225 by The Reverend Dark on June 15, 2008 at 2:00 am
Hey TXPiper, in case you missed the question, or ignored it in your fear-soaked-unwilling-to-provide-evidence way, here it is again.
Is a date of approximately 2,349 BC an accurate representation of when you think the global flood of genesis took place?
Alternately you could provide the date of creation and we can add 1,656 years to it.
Txpiper warbled.
The MIT piece on the other hand is real, useful, honest science. He mentions reasonable speculation about some of the mechanics, and is candid about what is not known.
Jacobson's paper is excellent on how the ear works at a physcial level, he does not actually get into the evolution as such. I agree it is an excellent paper, but it in no way adds credence to your point.
Things like this are not produced by accident. I'm sorry, but the "exquisite temporal synchronization" that the writer mentions was not designed on a chance basis. Get real. It didn't happen. The fact that all kinds of animals have all kinds of specialized hearing systems does not mean those systems, or those animals are related.
Awww, personal incredulity at work again; combined with a piss poor knowledge of gene mapping. Well Laughing boy, I hope your arguments for the flood are more enlightening. Of course, given that you cannot even provide an approximate, fixed date in history, I am not expecting much.
ReceivedTheGift
You will never admit it. Macroevolution is soley based on inferences. This is a fact.
No, that is personal incredulity based on ignorance.
Have you seen any actual scientific verifiable accepted transitional fossil? Because that is the only way you can claim Macroevolution. Please be honest and answer the question.
Several examples have already been given to you sunshine, but that is not the only way you can claim macroevolution. I see Epeeist has already pointed you in the correct direction.
Are you INFERRING that I have not read this before? That's your problem. You base so much of what you take as fact by accepting INNFERENCES as facts
Well Sunshine, all evidence points to the contrary. If you had read it, you would not be asking the ignorant questions I have quoted above. You would of course provide your peer reviewed paper that provides a better explanation of observable phenomenon. Here's a hint, the bible in not peer reviewed, not does it provide a better explanation.
Then again you are not much on evidence or rational thought. Come on, you say the way to see god (presumably your god) is to look around. I see a tree, a window, several monitors, a robotic talking parrot and a copy of Your Inner Fish (list trimmed for brevity.) I don't see your god, or evidence for your god anywhere... is that him... no that's someone walking their dog and being pulled, thus moving in a mysterious way. If I were dyslexic I might be seeing god, but that would be a transposition not a transubstantiation. Even if the dog did squeeze out a loaf.
More twattage from RecievedTheGit
Goldy,
I am not sure what happened to you in your childhood or past, but the bitterness is very apparent. Your hostility in your responses projects a sad and unhappy inner soul. My prayer group will be diligent in praying for you to understand, recognize and deal with the demons which are eating at your soul. I think you are in denial.
So Sunshine, rather than doing something useful you are all going to get together, praise your imaginary friend and have a bitch session over people you perceive as damaged. Well, that sounds like an excellent use of your time, truly top notch.
By the way Sunshine, are the demons you mention metaphorical, or do you actually believe that Satan's evil little homunculi are sinking their teeth into, as you put it, Goldy' soul.
Call it my need to know.
ReceivedtheGit
Goldy
I hope you will be honest with me. If over the next few days, if you start feeling an unusual tugging of your heart, please inform me so I can help you in your ultimate realization of the truth. Jesus is the Truth and The Way.
Goldy, if you feel an unusual tugging at your heart it is possibly (But highly unlikely) strange Indiana-Jones style cultists (Ie. imaginary) trying to pull your heart from your body. Kick their arses. Althernately if you experience paliptations, you should speak to a medical proffessional.
ReceivedTheGit, you should stop giving out medical advice, you are not qualified.
So before I go, Txpiper, laughing boy; here's that question that you keep avoiding, again.
Is a date of approximately 2,349 BC an accurate representation of when you think the global flood of genesis took place?
Alternately you could provide the date of creation and we can add 1,656 years to it.
I am not really expecting you to provide a date that can actually be used, but hope is that thing with feathers (the robotic parrot has faux feathers and is not named Hope, so has been removed from the running.) Your abject cowardice in not giving this date is to be expected.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
47. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #193005 by The Reverend Dark on June 14, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Txpiper
I'm good enough with AIG's date. Whatever it was, it is 1656 years after Adam.
Lovely bit of chronal arsewipery there laughing boy. You make it look like you are accepting the date, but leave yourself an out through reinterpretation of of the original date of creation. This is a rather nasty bit of dishonesty by omission on your part. It gives you a backdoor to squeeze out of if you feel trapped.
Is a date of approximately 2,349 BC an accurate representation of when you think the global flood of genesis took place?
You seemed a little more agitated than usual. Does that mean you weren't pleased with my comments on the platypus piece?
No, that is just your imagination laughing boy; the scorn has remained in the scathing range where it normally resides when dealing with your deliberate, uninformed, stupidity and lies. I was quite pleased with your comments. To see you wave your ignorance around is always quite amusing. Especially when I held two papers back, predicting exactly where you would make your accusations, and countering appropriately.
Txpiper's attempted talk origins hatchet job snipped for brevity.
I understand that you view things like this to be very scientific. But to me, in consideration of what all is really involved and what we know about the fecklessness of mutations, it's dumb as a rock.
Laughing boy, you missed the point they were making. They are refuting the claim that ears are too complex to have evolved on their own. I would suggest Neil Shubin's Excellent book "Your Inner Fish, which has an excellent primer to ear evolution, from fish to human, including mechanisms, morphology, fossil evidence, etc.
Of course presenting evidence to you is rather futile, as you are in the firm, stigmata lubricated grip of the holy handjob, and as such, entirely resistant to evidence. I would of course be willing to entertain evidence for your god, if you actually had any, but just like you faff about with dates above, you don't actually have any explanations for testing your alternate, goddidit theory.
Evidence laughing boy, rather that assertion.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fossil-reveals-ear-evolution-in-action&ref=rss
Awwww.. He's talking about the rapture
I don't think so. I think he's more likely referencing historical labor pains leading up to the Trib, but I'm behind in reading the thread.
Perhaps, but either way, the original critique still stands. Apocalyptics of all flavours have been predicting that the end of days is imminent for over 2,000 years, and each time there is a moment of hangdog confusion as the date whizzes past them with nary a hiccough, but soon they are back at it with the next biblically predicted date that the end of days will arrive on.
Simply put, bullshit. Almost all religions that have a creation myth have a corresponding destruction myth.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
48. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #192842 by The Reverend Dark on June 14, 2008 at 3:18 am
ReceivedtheGit (Yes there is an F missing, but I will be putting it to use shortly.
There is a lot of tripe here, but time to get busy.
I will take the last first.
I truly am trying to understand why this discussion resulted in most of you displaying such an animosity and heartless attack on Christianity. Why are you so afraid. This display has to be the result of some uncertainty in your subconscience mind. Why do you feel so threatened? Jesus is near whenever you call for him. Only he can fill this void in your heart. I challenge you. Just ask.
Sigh. Sunshine, as has been pointed out to you before, by me and others; you are not being persecuted as a christian, you are being derided for being a tiresome, whiny little fuck-stick who insists on assertion without evidence. If you want to be persecuted find a dominatrix, he or she will debase you, tell you what a deeply flawed vessel you are, and after the whips and scourges of life, it will be well, and all through the charade, will tell you that you are loved. This should feed your persecution, and unlike christian faith will offer you the chance for a blow-job and perhaps a soapy tit wank.
Unfortunately, there is and there will never be any proof presented to you in which you would or could accept. You can't. It is like attempting to make a blind man see. Your science theory does not allow for anything other than natural laws.
Actually Sunshine, science is making very exciting inroads into making blind men and women see, but that is a digression from your point. I will counter that there is nothing that anyone could do that would cause you to accept the equally valid imaginary friends Odin, Zeus, Ra, The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Bert the Magic Penguin. There is no evidence for them that you would accept either; yet they are every bit as real as the christian god - using the standards of evidence that you provide, which seem to be limited to warm fuzzy feelings and fuck-witted assertions.
You claim to have Jesus in your heart. That's not Jesus, it's Bert the Magic penguin, warming his frost rhimed feet on your vena cava with interpretive funk dancing and occasionally yodelling the more bawdy verses of Eskimo Nell into your right atrium. It feels just like Jesus, but that is Bert grooving in a mysterious way. All you have to do to accept Zeus into your heart is bend over and yell 'Hello Sailor'; He will reach your heart through your arse, and be in the form of a swan at the time, but tallyho. The Zeus claim seems inane and silly - and it is, but it is identical to your Jesus claim, and is backed up by the same exacting standard of evidence you provide. None at all.
That is how science theory is defined. The only difference is that the blind man does not have the ability or free will to cure his blindness. You do. You are choosing to remain blind and accept Evolution no matter how foolish it is, because it adheres to your closed mind of natural law.
So foolishness is accepting the massive piles of evidence for evolution, versus believing in a magical sky fairy (one of many) for which there is no evidence, only the assertions of fuckwits like you? Foolishness? Morgenstern described this very well 'You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means."
That is why, I know, my prayers will eventually cause one of you to really think logically in questioning your beliefs, and thus ask Jesus to come into your life.
Logically, Sunshine, you have just stepped in what is commonly known here as a Wooterism. Please do not mention the Mona Lisa next. In case you prayed your way through science class, which looks like what happened, science is about keeping an open mind; as opposed to parochial bronze age myths like Christianity (although there have been several more moden festive variations). It was not so long ago that Organ transplants were thought to be impossible. Plate Tectonics is relatively recent. Yet the evidence is there, and compelling; changing people's minds.
Evidence sunshine, something you seem unwilling and unable to provide.
I will note that I asked you a simple question. The same question I have regularly been putting to laughing boy. Neither of you see fit to answer it. Surely your faith would allow this date to be examined.
When was the global flood of genesis.
I don't expect an answer to this, as you and Txpiper have shown yourself to be pissant little cowards in regards to backing up your faith by answering this question. Useless little keks pissing theists to a man.
You are wrong. I love all. Especially our youth. The damage that the Atheist Evolution proponents are doing is the biggest deceivement in human history. Children need to know that they were created by a God who love them. That they are special and have a purpose in life.
That sir is assertion without evidence. Children are created by fucking, or in some cases artificial insemination - fucking by proxy.
I like how you claim deceivement for a claim (evolution) backed up by clear and compelling evidence, but can provide not evidence for your own claim (creation).
I believe for any society to sustain, it must adhere to an accepted set of standards. The Christian standard is it.
Oh you mean slaves, genocide and the subjugation of women. Not to mention stoning people for working on the sabbath, or any of the other arsewipery laid out in the big book of the Christian god.
If you have any knowledge of history, there is quite a bit of secular historical accounts of Jesus. I assume you know this.
I love it when the religous display their utter ignorance of the history of their own religion. Jesus as a historical figure is rather poorly documented.
Some claim the Talmud contains refereces to Jesus but the stories documented chronologically as occuring a century after Jesus supposedly popped his Sandy Clogs and do not stand up to any serious scrutiny, and could be attributed to any number of sandy messiahs.
The mention of Jesus in Tacticus's Annals is possibly later addition to the work by a different author; but if you read the passage, you will note that he is not confirming that Jesus existed, but stating that Christians took their name from the figure Christus, put to death by Tiberius. The Tacitus passage is defining the Christian faith, by reporting how they claim to have taken their name.
Flavius Josephus was born after the death of Jesus and his account was written after the synoptic gospels.
Pliny was also too late to be a witness to Jesus.
Also odd is that Philo, who lived in the period and geographic area that Jesus's ministery was supposed to have taken place did not once mention him. Despite the claims of the bible of the death and resurrection; which would be pretty hard to miss. The dead rising, the rending of the veil, etc. Much of his work survives, but not a single Jesus reference.
So, the secular historical accounts of Jesus are very limited.
Twat.
So sunshine (and you too laughing boy)
What approximate date did the global flood of Genesis occur?
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
49. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #192646 by The Reverend Dark on June 13, 2008 at 7:39 pm
ReceivedTheGift dialled in with this burning missive.
How's it going? I've been observing this blog for a few days now.
Well son, your mamma must be proud of you.
Please let me give you some advice. Anything you say will be refuted by proponents of this forum.
You're only saying that because all laughing boy manages is creationist nutbaggery.
Science has crippled itself in the sense of the inability to look outside the box. Science does not allow for any reasoning outside natural laws.
Yep. Unless you bring evidence to the table, you are shit out of luck. But don't feel bad, your mythology and imaginary friends aren't the only ones left out. No fairies, no pixies, no magic penguins.
Evolution proponents use the facts they have in microevolution to accept, as fact, all the inferences towards macroevolution.
Not to mention the fossil record, geological record, cosmology. Evidence, versus what the creationist's bring to the table, incredulity combined with parochial bronze age myths and an understanding of modern science that would be laughable in the three year old.
They have no other choice. No matter how foolish it sounds to us.
Why does the above comment sound like a bedwetter chiding someone for having dry sheets?
But you must realize that there is more happening here. Most of the forum regulars are very unsure of their belief. If one is so confident and positive of their knowledge, they would not feel so threatened.
Project much? Science as a discipline is the constant challenge of knowledge. You have to be open to the new and unusual, and to have your world view altered. That is science. However, there has to evidence, something that you and your ilk are very poor at providing.
So tell me, if laughing boy is so confident in his knowledge, why hasn't he provided a date for the global flood of Noah?
You would think with that much confidence, the single date that all creationist bumwipery rests on would pour from his lips like a curry and twelve lager extravaganza seeking escape on a Brighton sidewalk.
Yet Txpiper does not provide this date.
Confident in his beliefs. No. Not at all.
I am constantly referring my friends to this sight for observation. After a few minutes, one can easily see their lack of certainty. It really is sad. Their hostility and aggression towards Jesus and Christians is so apparent right away.
Actually sunshine, the hostility is directed at those who bring forth assertion without evidence, whether they be christian, muslim, pastafarian or believers in extra-terrestrial rectum raiders. If you want to feel persecuted hire a dominatrix.
Before one mentions anything about a deity, in regards to Intelligent Design or Creation they jump on and viciously attack the Christian faith.
The above statement is hyperbole at best. The attack is, as has been previously mentioned, is against assertion without evidence.
You claim to have been observing this site, but have not picked up on this small, but ever so important detail. No cookie for you.
They suggest that we are not intelligent or don't have the intellectual capacity in which they have. That we believe in fairy tales. Why is this? Their eyes are closed.
Well then sunshine, where is the independently testable, verifiable, experiment that can be run to prove the existance of your imaginary friend.
Do you have one?
Can you provide one?
What mechanism should be used?
Or are you just spouting shite?
Stop engaging them. It is useless. Since they can't possibly conceive in a Lord, their eyes are closed to the foolishness of Evolution.
They just can't see how oh so special our imaginary friend is. Can't they see him? Can't they hear him? Can't they touch him? Can't they feel him? (With apologies to Pete Townshend.)
Understand t