RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (22) < ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 >   
  Topic: FL Debate Peanut Gallery, Keep it Clean!< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2010,10:19   

Just a brief responses.  Again, CSadam's own scanned pages.  I directly wrote:

Quote
One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the “RNA World” hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it.


And Cheryl said....what?  First she says,

Quote
Note that nowhere does the term “RNA world” even appear in the text.The para on p. 256 is labeled “A possible role for catalysts.” Right there, big and bold.


You gotta be kidding CS.  Are you even ATTEMPTING to deny that your own scanned page 256, is directly presenting what is commonly known the RNA World Hypothesis??  In both paragraph and flowchart forms?Your attempt to evade that one is so very lame.  The scan-page even gives the name of the guy who came up with the RNA World in the first place.  

Here folks, take a look and see:

http://www.anevolvingcreation.net/standup....466.jpg

Then Cheryl also says:

Quote
The final paragraph in the section also makes it clear that the origin of RNA is far from understood:


and refers to this scan-page paragraph:

Quote
Because researchers do not yet understand how DNA, RNA, and hereditary mechanisms first developed, how life might have originated naturally and spontaneously remains a subject of intense interest, research, and discussion among scientists.


So, do you see any actual problems associated with the RNA World hypothesis being specified on that scan-page?  Even just ONE actual problem?

No, you do not.  Which I why I said, (again this is from Cheryl's PT link):

[quote]Go back and look at those scanned pages again before you respond, Wheels. None of the actual problems associated with the RNA World are actually mentioned in Holt 2004. Nor are the **magnitude** of the problems indicated. (In contrast, Orgel’s article cited earlier, does BOTH imo.)

You see that?  Cheryl's busted now.  

Her own scan-page reveals that she actually NEVER acknowledged that I correctly identified one important problem with the textbook while openly retracting my other statement.  

Instead she tried to duck and dodge, (but apparently forgot that her own scan-page was right there to tell the truth on her as well as me.)

So, that's where it stands.  Not convinced of my trustworthiness, Cs?  Well baby, I'm not convinced of yours either, as you can see why.  

We can just let it all stay in standoff mode, if you'd like.  In this forum, it's not that important.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3280
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2010,11:12   

Since you keep bringing it up, Floyd.  How many nucleotides long does an RNA molecule have to be for it to be a functional catalyst?

Have you actually done any research into the recent advances promoting the RNA hypothesis?  Say since January?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2010,11:15   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 22 2010,10:19)
Just a brief responses.  Again, CSadam's own scanned pages.  I directly wrote:

Quote
One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the “RNA World” hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it.


And Cheryl said....what?  First she says,

Quote
Note that nowhere does the term “RNA world” even appear in the text.The para on p. 256 is labeled “A possible role for catalysts.” Right there, big and bold.


You gotta be kidding CS.  Are you even ATTEMPTING to deny that your own scanned page 256, is directly presenting what is commonly known the RNA World Hypothesis??  In both paragraph and flowchart forms?Your attempt to evade that one is so very lame.  The scan-page even gives the name of the guy who came up with the RNA World in the first place.  

Here folks, take a look and see:

http://www.anevolvingcreation.net/standup....466.jpg

Then Cheryl also says:

Quote
The final paragraph in the section also makes it clear that the origin of RNA is far from understood:


and refers to this scan-page paragraph:

Quote
Because researchers do not yet understand how DNA, RNA, and hereditary mechanisms first developed, how life might have originated naturally and spontaneously remains a subject of intense interest, research, and discussion among scientists.


So, do you see any actual problems associated with the RNA World hypothesis being specified on that scan-page?  Even just ONE actual problem?

No, you do not.  Which I why I said, (again this is from Cheryl's PT link):

[quote]Go back and look at those scanned pages again before you respond, Wheels. None of the actual problems associated with the RNA World are actually mentioned in Holt 2004. Nor are the **magnitude** of the problems indicated. (In contrast, Orgel’s article cited earlier, does BOTH imo.)

You see that?  Cheryl's busted now.  

Her own scan-page reveals that she actually NEVER acknowledged that I correctly identified one important problem with the textbook while openly retracting my other statement.  

Instead she tried to duck and dodge, (but apparently forgot that her own scan-page was right there to tell the truth on her as well as me.)

So, that's where it stands.  Not convinced of my trustworthiness, Cs?  Well baby, I'm not convinced of yours either, as you can see why.  

We can just let it all stay in standoff mode, if you'd like.  In this forum, it's not that important.

Coward.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Jasper



Posts: 76
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2010,11:35   

Quote (FloydLee @ April 22 2010,11:19)
You see that?  Cheryl's busted now.  

Her own scan-page reveals that she actually NEVER acknowledged that I correctly identified one important problem with the textbook while openly retracting my other statement.  

Instead she tried to duck and dodge, (but apparently forgot that her own scan-page was right there to tell the truth on her as well as me.)

She's busted? For disagreeing with you?

As I understand it, Floyd, csadams merely disagrees with your assertion that there is an "important problem" with the textbook.  She said so over a year ago and just repeated herself yesterday.

Look, Floyd, it has been pointed out to you multiple times that high school biology students lack the necessary understanding of biochemistry that is required to grasp the problems with the RNA world hypothesis. The textbook in question clearly emphasizes the tentative nature of the hypothesis and leaves it to the teacher to go more in depth if the students can handle it.

Why don't you just admit it, Floyd? No scientifically-accurate textbook could ever satisfy you because you only want to focus on what we DON'T know, not on what we DO know. Obviously, your goal is to raise unreasonable doubts in the minds of students so that they will be more likely to fall back on the non-scientific explanations they hear from their pastors and from cowardly, hypocritical liars like you.

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2010,14:54   

Well, he does think that gene duplications and genome duplications are essentially the same thing because he was able to find a couple of real live scientists mention them both in the same paragraph....

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2010,14:59   

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 20 2010,10:53)
Quote (FloydLee @ April 20 2010,10:46)
Quote
Remember, Dembski said "ID is religious."

This one was specifically knocked out in the past few pages.  You guys aren't even listening.  Not even paying attention.  Repeating the same refuted claim.  

U gotta be kidding.   Honestly.

Self declared victory! Then why are you still here?

Dembski thinks that:

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory"

Okay.

Well see, THAT does not mean that ID is religious.

Can't you read?

:p

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2010,15:05   

Quote (csadams @ April 21 2010,15:55)
Quote (FloydLee @ April 20 2010,10:20)
Okay.  It's right there Cs.  I acknowledged my error, but you never acknowledged that the other one I got right.

No need to go any farther until you do.

Oh, I see.  You won't produce any evidence unless I give you credit.

I'll give you credit, sure enough.  In fact, responded to your argument over a year ago:

 
Quote
Let me see if I get this - FL, you’re now complaining that the short little paragraph in the text dealing with the RNA world hypothesis doesn’t mention one of your pet problems with it?

Riiiiight. Note that nowhere does the term “RNA world” even appear in the text. The para on p. 256 is labeled “A possible role for catalysts.” Right there, big and bold.

(So if you were to wander into my classroom today, you’d probably gripe that I’m not teaching the mathematics of Gauss’ law to freshman who are learning the difference between resistance and conductance. Gotcha.)

The final paragraph in the section also makes it clear that the origin of RNA is far from understood:

     
Quote
Because researchers do not yet understand how DNA, RNA, and hereditary mechanisms first developed, how life might have originated naturally and spontaneously remains a subject of intense interest, research, and discussion among scientists.


FL, I hope you’ve learned something here: that you’d best check original sources to make sure they actually say what your favorite websites claim they say. Between your bastardization of the Holt text and your subsequent use of the Gould quote-mine, you seem to be following in the footsteps of Don McLeroy.


So yeah, I give you credit. I give you credit for continually refusing to provide evidence in the form of page scans.  I give you credit for not responding to the above points I made over a year ago.  I give you credit for ignoring the suggestion that you write your very own high-school level treatment of origin-of-life.  

Dollars to doughnuts that you'll refuse to provide the scans unless I say exactly what you want me to say.  Meh.  I don't dance that way.  Besides, you've used other excuses before to not provide original documentation.  

We shouldn't really be surprised you put a ludicrous condition on providing evidence this time.

Ho hum.  Wake me up when FL provides some actual factual evidence in form of scans of the relevant textbook pages.

My gosh, FL is  aseriously broken record.

He did the EXACT same thing with Freeman and Herron's 'Evolutionary Analysis' re: panspermia - in a box essay, them mention - MENTION - panspermia as one of several non-abiogenetic origins of life and because they did not explicitly dismiss it, he declared on CARM that therefore they were endorsing it.

How does this guy get through a day with such muddled thinking?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3280
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2010,16:01   

Well... since

1) FL hasn't answered my questions after several days of asking and
2) He keeps bringing up the subject of RNA World and
3) I'm about to leave for the day and I happen to have the resources open

Here's your current research FL... you know the things you ought to investigate before making statements about which you know very little.

How did life begin
This article (which includes a link to the peer-reviewed paper it discusses), describes how evolutionary principles allowed researchers to generate the first self-replicating RNA system.  Please note (and this is FL's favorite objection) that they do not say this is how life began.  However, this proves that self-replicating systems can evolve and this proves that RNA can self-replicate.

Smallest RNAs with functions
This is the peer-reviewed research article that shows that RNA segements as small as 5 nucleotides can have catalytic functions.  Please note, that the actual catalyzing length is only 3 nucleotides long (the other two nucleotides can be anything).  The money quote:
Quote
To see this, consider that, to pick every possible RNA pentamer sequence from arbitrary pentamers (with probability 0.9975), one needs only accumulate 4.1 × 10-18 gm of RNA. To possess every tetramer (with probability 0.9975) from a pool of arbitrary tetramers, one would need 3.4 × 10-18 gm RNA. In a real polymerization, one would have a distribution of lengths; nonetheless, with only attograms of total RNA of distributed short lengths from some geochemical source, one would have not only our ribozyme, but every activity of comparable size.


my emphasis

And finally, just because it turned up in my search:
Origin of life
This article describes how long chain cyclic RNA molecules can be formed in nothing more exotic than warm water.  {Again, link to actual paper follows the article.}

So, FL, the RNA world hypothesis has (in these three articles) infinitely more support than ID does (well, effectively infinite, divide by zero problems and all that).

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
tsig



Posts: 320
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2010,17:26   

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 20 2010,10:53)
Quote (FloydLee @ April 20 2010,10:46)
 
Quote
Remember, Dembski said "ID is religious."

This one was specifically knocked out in the past few pages.  You guys aren't even listening.  Not even paying attention.  Repeating the same refuted claim.  

U gotta be kidding.   Honestly.

Self declared victory! Then why are you still here?

Dembski thinks that:

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory"

Okay.

Well you see that was with his religious hat on when he puts on his science hat and says ID is science you have to believe that too.

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2010,19:25   

Quote (tsig @ April 22 2010,17:26)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 20 2010,10:53)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ April 20 2010,10:46)
 
Quote
Remember, Dembski said "ID is religious."

This one was specifically knocked out in the past few pages.  You guys aren't even listening.  Not even paying attention.  Repeating the same refuted claim.  

U gotta be kidding.   Honestly.

Self declared victory! Then why are you still here?

Dembski thinks that:

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory"

Okay.

Well you see that was with his religious hat on when he puts on his science hat and says ID is science you have to believe that too.

When does he take off the Dunce cap?

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2010,17:14   

Quote
Oh, the other guy that does that is FL.  Come to think of it, has anyone seen JoeG and FL in the same place at the same time???  Could it be ... "


Nope, cain't be.  I'm me, quite exclusively.  Never been anybody else.  

You'd think after all our previous dancing in this forum, that would be clear!  :)

Btw, this is just a courtesy quicknote to clear up your inquiry. I actually won't be around till Feb 1 at the earliest.

After Feb 1, just to see how things are going, I might seriously check out this Evolutionary Discussion Forum (otherwise known as the No-count Dar-win Var-mint Pig-pen, as JoeG may have discovered by now), once again!!

FL

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2010,17:21   

Quote (FloydLee @ Dec. 09 2010,17:14)
You'd think after all our previous dancing in this forum, that would be clear!  :)

Be careful. You know what dancing leads to....

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2010,18:13   

Quote (FloydLee @ Dec. 09 2010,17:14)
Quote
Oh, the other guy that does that is FL.  Come to think of it, has anyone seen JoeG and FL in the same place at the same time???  Could it be ... "


Nope, cain't be.  I'm me, quite exclusively.  Never been anybody else.  

You'd think after all our previous dancing in this forum, that would be clear!  :)

Btw, this is just a courtesy quicknote to clear up your inquiry. I actually won't be around till Feb 1 at the earliest.

After Feb 1, just to see how things are going, I might seriously check out this Evolutionary Discussion Forum (otherwise known as the No-count Dar-win Var-mint Pig-pen, as JoeG may have discovered by now), once again!!

FL

Funny, I thought you were out of the loop until February?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3280
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2010,08:43   

Quote (SLP @ Dec. 09 2010,18:13)
Quote (FloydLee @ Dec. 09 2010,17:14)
Quote
Oh, the other guy that does that is FL.  Come to think of it, has anyone seen JoeG and FL in the same place at the same time???  Could it be ... "


Nope, cain't be.  I'm me, quite exclusively.  Never been anybody else.  

You'd think after all our previous dancing in this forum, that would be clear!  :)

Btw, this is just a courtesy quicknote to clear up your inquiry. I actually won't be around till Feb 1 at the earliest.

After Feb 1, just to see how things are going, I might seriously check out this Evolutionary Discussion Forum (otherwise known as the No-count Dar-win Var-mint Pig-pen, as JoeG may have discovered by now), once again!!

FL

Funny, I thought you were out of the loop until February?

Is that when he gets his final release from the institution?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2010,18:11   

Quote
Indeed. This has turned into the same tired old science/religion, atheist/accomdationist circle-jerk that so many threads here and elsewhere turn into. Sometime I wonder whether you all that think about anything else!

For the simple reason that you’ve gotten off the topic of the post, I’m closing comments.  ---John Lynch


As 2010 comes to a close, let me offer one observation on the year.  You guys (and gals) think you're into defending science and such, don't you?  Of course you do.  You think that's why you're here.  True-blue, thru-and-thru, the guardians of science and rationality.

But in fact, that's NOT what you're really interested in, as the evolutionist quotation makes clear.   You actually are heavily and highly interested in discussing and defending RELIGION.  

In fact, your interest in religion frequently eclipses your interest in science.  Yes it does, so don't bother lying about it.  I've been here for years and I see it all the time.

Consider:  It's possible for a PandasThumb thread to git all frisky and get itself shut down WITHOUT ANY creationists or IDer's or trolls offering ANY posts on that thread at all.  

Which is precisely what happened today, of course.  Not one creo in the batch, and you evo's STILL messed up your own PT thread, killing it before even 3 full pages could be logged.

So why do I show up at Pandas or ATBC?  Because you obviously WANT me to show up.  Or at least you want to discuss God with somebody (viz., somebody who still believes the Bible, somebody who believes God is Creator and Evolution is Dogpoop, somebody who's not all dragged up through the atheistic evolutionary mud!!).

C'mon now boys.  You already know the God of the Bible exists out there, you know he calls the shots (which is why you're still alive btw), you know he created the entire universe including your rebellious fanny.  

And you know he did NOT use evolution to create humans.  Evolution will never be able to account for YOUR existence.  You're better, much better, than that.  You are an engineering marvel, full of teleology.  Evolution has no answers for you.  It never did.  

Plus God knows your name, your fame, your game, and your momma's too.  But that's another debate for another time.  God knows you--because he created you.

Point is, as you look back on 2010, take a long look at yourself and see how deeply interested YOU are in spiritual matters.  You WILL see some interest there, that's for sure (especially if such matters happen to clash with your favorite devil-religion commonly known as "Evolution.")  

Check it out and notice how your cherished beliefs in materialism, (especially materialism masquerading as science) get all tense and twangy when challenged by issues such as creationism, intelligent design, or even an occasional inconvenient Michael Ruse question.  Ask yourself why that's happening.

Meanwhile, Happy New Year to you!  May your 2011 truly be all blessed.  

(And may evolutionary theory truly be all cursed!!)

FL

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2010,18:16   

If Evolutionary Biology and the totality of science is against your bigoted religion, FL, why do you keep eating industrially made food, and continue using medicine, vaccines, plastic and the Internet?

Hypocrite, much?

  
JohnW



Posts: 2221
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2010,18:23   

Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 30 2010,16:16)
If Evolutionary Biology and the totality of science is against your bigoted religion, FL, why do you keep eating industrially made food, and continue using medicine, vaccines, plastic and the Internet?

Hypocrite, much?

Let it go, Stanton.  He's not here to debate.  He's here to preach.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
lkeithlu



Posts: 321
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2010,18:46   

Quote (FloydLee @ Dec. 30 2010,18:11)
Quote
Indeed. This has turned into the same tired old science/religion, atheist/accomdationist circle-jerk that so many threads here and elsewhere turn into. Sometime I wonder whether you all that think about anything else!

For the simple reason that you’ve gotten off the topic of the post, I’m closing comments.  ---John Lynch


As 2010 comes to a close, let me offer one observation on the year.  You guys (and gals) think you're into defending science and such, don't you?  Of course you do.  You think that's why you're here.  True-blue, thru-and-thru, the guardians of science and rationality.

But in fact, that's NOT what you're really interested in, as the evolutionist quotation makes clear.   You actually are heavily and highly interested in discussing and defending RELIGION.  

In fact, your interest in religion frequently eclipses your interest in science.  Yes it does, so don't bother lying about it.  I've been here for years and I see it all the time.

Consider:  It's possible for a PandasThumb thread to git all frisky and get itself shut down WITHOUT ANY creationists or IDer's or trolls offering ANY posts on that thread at all.  

Which is precisely what happened today, of course.  Not one creo in the batch, and you evo's STILL messed up your own PT thread, killing it before even 3 full pages could be logged.

So why do I show up at Pandas or ATBC?  Because you obviously WANT me to show up.  Or at least you want to discuss God with somebody (viz., somebody who still believes the Bible, somebody who believes God is Creator and Evolution is Dogpoop, somebody who's not all dragged up through the atheistic evolutionary mud!!).

C'mon now boys.  You already know the God of the Bible exists out there, you know he calls the shots (which is why you're still alive btw), you know he created the entire universe including your rebellious fanny.  

And you know he did NOT use evolution to create humans.  Evolution will never be able to account for YOUR existence.  You're better, much better, than that.  You are an engineering marvel, full of teleology.  Evolution has no answers for you.  It never did.  

Plus God knows your name, your fame, your game, and your momma's too.  But that's another debate for another time.  God knows you--because he created you.

Point is, as you look back on 2010, take a long look at yourself and see how deeply interested YOU are in spiritual matters.  You WILL see some interest there, that's for sure (especially if such matters happen to clash with your favorite devil-religion commonly known as "Evolution.")  

Check it out and notice how your cherished beliefs in materialism, (especially materialism masquerading as science) get all tense and twangy when challenged by issues such as creationism, intelligent design, or even an occasional inconvenient Michael Ruse question.  Ask yourself why that's happening.

Meanwhile, Happy New Year to you!  May your 2011 truly be all blessed.  

(And may evolutionary theory truly be all cursed!!)

FL

What the hell? Don't you have better things to do, like Bible study?
I don't see anyone here getting tense and twangy. (Twangy?? What exactly does that look like?)

Edited. Because I can. Nyah Nyah Nyah. Are you jealous yet?

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1008
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2010,19:11   

I don't know about any of the rest of you, but I come here to mock the ridiculous.  FL is in good company there.  From Denyse's prose to GEM of TKI's Lewontin obsession. From Clive's (Hi, Clive!) ruthless hypocrisy to JoeG's thinking ice is only the same as water if it's the same size.  This is why I'm here.  (Well and the mum jokes)

So carry on Floyd.  Please tell me more about how I secretly worship your god.  Just warn me next time so I can set down my drink.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2010,19:12   

Quote (FloydLee @ Dec. 30 2010,19:11)
So why do I show up at Pandas or ATBC?  Because you obviously WANT me to show up.  

you're like running into the drunken preacher down in the park:  he shows up every once in a while, blathers, falls down, stands, blathers again, falls...rinse, repeat.

just cheap amusement but you don't want to get to close to him due to the stench and tiny livestock that feed upon him.

your life is already cursed but happy holidays to you, anyway.

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2010,19:41   

Dumber than advertised.  (eyeroll)  Totally impervious to reality, too.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2010,19:48   

Quote (rhmc @ Dec. 30 2010,19:12)
Quote (FloydLee @ Dec. 30 2010,19:11)
So why do I show up at Pandas or ATBC?  Because you obviously WANT me to show up.  

you're like running into the drunken preacher down in the park:  he shows up every once in a while, blathers, falls down, stands, blathers again, falls...rinse, repeat.

just cheap amusement but you don't want to get to close to him due to the stench and tiny livestock that feed upon him.

your life is already cursed but happy holidays to you, anyway.

I find that if I don't get a dose of idiocy from the likes of these guys, my day is less interesting.  I'd question Floyds sacrilege (calling God "he" instead of "He"), his complete lack of evidence (ex - he created the universe), and his complete and utter cluelessness (you all believe...), but we all know he's impervious.  Come back Jan 1st and give us a New Years Rant, Floyd!

Speaking of that, do we have any predictions on when someone will be the first to declare the death of Darwinism this year?

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2010,19:52   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Dec. 30 2010,19:11)
I don't know about any of the rest of you, but I come here to mock the ridiculous.  FL is in good company there.  From Denyse's prose to GEM of TKI's Lewontin obsession. From Clive's (Hi, Clive!) ruthless hypocrisy to JoeG's thinking ice is only the same as water if it's the same size.  This is why I'm here.  (Well and the mum jokes)

So carry on Floyd.  Please tell me more about how I secretly worship your god.  Just warn me next time so I can set down my drink.

Actually, FL thinks that you, I and everyone else who doesn't worship his inanity are actually evil satanists who worship Evolution as a literal god, regard Charles Darwin as a literal bible, and worship in science classrooms, because to FL, science classrooms are just another church.

Of course, FL also thinks he has the power to say who can and can not receive salvation from Jesus, and claims that all true Christians are forbidden from associating with Evolution in any way at all, except for its products, or if they're the Pope, for no apparent reason.

And there is the fact that FL claims that Jesus will send anyone to Hell who doesn't believe that the Book of Genesis is literally, word for word true, even though FL refuses to quote or even mention which Biblical passage says this.

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2010,20:19   

IOW, Brother Floyd is the sort of Troo BeLIEver (tm pat pend) who makes atheists...not that he understands why or how this works, or would stop if it ever sank home that his efforts are counterproductive.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2010,21:09   

Hi, Floyd!

Fuck off.  And die.  In a fire.

Smooches!  :x

(I figured, as a Christmas gift, I'd give him what he REALLY wanted: A nasty, mean, evil atheist screed)

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2010,21:17   

Such grandmotherly kindness, Wolfhound!  I bet the little ingrate won't even say thank you.

:D

I'd give him six dozen of the best from a hickory switch, but he'd enjoy it.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2010,21:21   

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 30 2010,22:17)
Such grandmotherly kindness, Wolfhound!

Hey!  I'm not THAT old!!   :angry:   *shakes fist*

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2010,21:28   

(ducks) (dodges) (waves flag of truce frantically)

It's from a Zen Buddhist koan, I swear!


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2010,21:30   

Sounds like FL ran out of his only friend, Jim Beam.

Like a silent film star in the modern era, more of a curiosity than anyone taken seriously.

Sucks to be you, FL.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3280
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2010,21:37   

Whew, I almost missed the cowardly FL... another 'Christian' who doesn't know anything about the bible OR science.

Floyd, we don't talk about religion because we're more interested in it than science.  We talk about it because it KEEPS FUCKING UP OUR WORLD.

Floyd is another one that's actually quite amusing because
he doesn't actually believe in God or God's Word either.  He's just too insecure to admit it.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
  634 replies since Sep. 09 2009,12:17 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (22) < ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]