| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
26 Jan 2006 08:42:55 PM |
| Object: |
26 Proofs of Poseur Dave Being a Liar |
On August 31st 2005, "Pastor Dave", aka "Ananias917", aka
Pathologically Dumb, aka Poseur Dave posted a challenge to prove
macroevolution (http://tinyurl.com/cql8a, hereinafter known as "the
macro thread"). In alt.atheism!
If he wants scientific evidence and if understands science as he
claims, why doesn't he have the courage to challenge the scientists in
a news group like talk.origins? He's a coward, that's why. He's
incompetent in the subject and he knows it. He thought he could get
away with it in a.a. He was wrong.
Poseur Dave was invited to define macroevolution for the purposes of
the macro thread. Instead, he ran away.
Poseur Dave was invited to state what he would accept as proof in the
macro thread. He ran away.
Poseur Dave was invited to define "kind". He ran away.
Poseur Dave was invited to scientifically define the mechanism which
would prevent one "kind" from changing into another "kind". He ran
away.
Poseur Dave was invited to discuss, scientifically, any or all of the
666 items of evidence from me alone. He ran away.
Poseur Dave was invited to discuss, scientifically, the evidence
provided by others. He ran away.
Poseur Dave was invited to scientifically discuss 26 proofs I provided.
He ran away.
Poseur Dave is *still* running almost five months later.
Poseur Dave is now lying that macroevolution is a fantasy. Yet he
cannot define it. He cannot differentiate it scientifically from
macroevolution at the genetic level. He's still arrogantly and
fraudulently pretending he can be the arbiter of what is proof and what
isn't.
And he's *still* lying about the proof.
Here's the definition of macroevolution from Merriam Webster:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=macroevolution
"evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in
species formation)"
And here is a list of others, nearly every one of which includes
"species" as part of the definition:
http://tinyurl.com/au38q
So, in short, macroevolution is genetic change leading to speciation or
something beyond.
Below are twenty-six proofs explained in my own words, with no
references or cut and paste, *exactly* as Poseur Dave, the "scientific
genius", so arrogantly demanded. references for all fo these are
readily available. They're published in the scientific literature. A
simple search on the Internet will find information about them for you.
Now here are my baker's dozen predictions about what Poseur Dave will
do:
#1
He will dismiss them based on nothing more than his own say so.
#2
He will be unChristian and insulting in doing so.
#3
He will insist he understands science while demonstrating with every
thing he posts that he's totally clueless about science, about who does
the science, about how the science is reported, and about how the
science is done.
#4
He will call me a liar without offering an iota of rational support for
his lie.
#5
He will offer not a single shred of evidence to disqualify a single one
of these proofs.
#6
He will comprehensively *fail* to offer any kind of scientific
definition for macroevolution.
#7
He will, nonetheless, declare flatly that not one of these examples
meets his non-existent definition.
#8
He will never, no matter how many times, no matter how politely he's
asked, no matter who asks him, ever scientifically define what a "kind"
is (as used in the Genesis global flood story) even though he
categorically swears there are immutable "kinds".
#9
He will never, no matter how many times, no matter how politely he's
asked, no matter who asks him, ever scientifically define the mechanism
which might prevent one "kind" from becoming another "kind" over time,
even though he categorically swears there is one.
#10
He will never even begin to think of trying to explain why or defining
what would prevent something like a mouse evolving into a human being
over time when the difference between us is only 600 genes out of well
over 20,000.
#11
He will never even begin to think of trying to explain why or defining
what would prevent something like a chimpanzee evolving into a human
being over time when the difference between us is only 1 or 2 percent
**OF WORKING GENES**. as the recent mapping of the chimpanzee genome
has unarguably demonstrated.
#12
He will never even begin to think.
#13
He will pretend to ignore this thread and not appear in it whilst
sniping at and telling lies about me at every opportunity elsewhere,
never once entering into a dialog with me in order that we could
resolve this once and for all.
Example A.
Fossil primate species Pelycodus ralstoni changed into two separate
species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus in an unbroken
fossil transition. The two later became even more distinct, and the
descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of
genus Notharctus.
The evolution of a new genus is macroevolution proven.
Example C.
There is more than a dozen species of Darwin's finch on the Galapagos
Islands. There's some disagreement depending on how some intriguing
populations are classified. There is even disagreement about which
genera the species are divided into. Traditionally they are placed
into four groups: the tree finches (Camarhynchus), the warbler finch
(Certhidea), the ground finches (Geospiza) and the Cocos finch
(Pinaroloxias). It's current practice to class the Camarhynchus as
three genera: Camarhynchus (the tree finches), Platyspiza (the
vegetarian finch) and Cactospiza (the woodpecker and mangrove finches).
No one disagrees, not even the creationists, that the finches all
evolved from one founder species.
The evolution of a new genus is macroevolution proven.
Example C.
In 1983 the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella
pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation was
reported. It arose as a result of growing the unicellular green alga
in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food
for a flagellate predator growing in the second stage. Due to the
failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within
five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came
to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32
cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has
persisted in culture for about a decade and has been keyed out using a
number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus
Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.
The evolution of a new genus is macroevolution proven.
Example D.
In 1990 it was reported that an unidentified bacterium underwent a
major morphological change when grown in the presence of a ciliate
predator. This bacterium's normal morphology is a short (1.5 um) rod.
After 8 - 10 weeks of growing with the predator it assumed the form of
long (20 um) cells. These cells have no cross walls. Multicellularity
has also been produced in unicellular bacterial by predation. In a
1994 study, growth in the presence of protozoal grazers resulted in the
production of chains of bacterial cells.
Morphological change is macroevolution.
Example E.
In the nineteenth century Spartina alternifolia was found in Townsend
harbor in southern England, it is a native of the Americas and
presumably seeds were transferred in a boat's bilge.
There already existed a European species S. maritima. Early in the
20th century a sterile hybrid of these two was found and was called
Spartina townsendii. This went through a process of diploidization
(duplication of chromosome pairs) and became a new sexually reproducing
species known as Spartina anglica.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example F.
A species of grass, Anthoxanthum odoratum, growing in plots in the Park
Grass Experiment at Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, UK.,
was originally set up in 1856 to test the reactions of meadow
vegetation to
different fertilizer applications. There has been a shift in flowering
time of A. odoratum at the border between adjacent experimental plots.
Crucially, this 'inverse cline' of flowering is a signature of the
first steps along a particular road to speciation, that has been
predicted by modelling studies exploring how natural selection against
hybrids could contribute to reproductive isolation between populations
in proximity. It suggests that some species within adjacent plots in
the Park Grass Experiment are not exchanging genetic material via
pollination as frequently as would be expected. The genetic outcome of
this reproductive isolation was tested by using Inter Simple-Sequence
Repeat (ISSR) markers, which confirmed that there had been genetic
divergence between adjacent plots at these neutral marker sites.
Reproductive isolation and genetic divergence, the first phases of
speciation, had been confirmed.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example G.
In the lakes of East Africa, fish of the family Cichlidae have radiated
extensively from one or a very few original founder species. At least
1500 species of fish have arisen from a common ancestor in the last 10
million years. Within Lake Malawi over 700 species have arisen within
the last 2 million years. A number of factors are at work, including
trophic specialization and sexual selection.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example H.
Chorthippus brunnaeus and C. biguttulus are all but indistinguishable
grasshoppers, but they do not interbreed in the wild and so are
different species. However, they are so recently (in geologic terms)
separated that they *can* interbreed. They're induced to do so by the
temperature of their head, as determined from the rate or frequency of
their chirping. If the female is artificially warmed or cooled to the
temperature of the other species, she will breed with it, but normally
in the natural world, they do not breed. Reproductive isolation is the
first step toward speciation.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example I.
Two species of planktonic foraminifera, Globigerinoides trilobus and
Orbulina universa, shared a common ancestor in the early Miocene. The
first appearance of 0. universa (~15 million years ago) was preceded by
an increase in the morphological variance of the ancestral lineage,
including the origin of several new and short-ranging morphospecies.
Biological speciation (cladogenesis) occurred priorly. Oxygen isotopic
ratios of G. trilobus and 0. universa indicate that the entire
evolutionary transition took place within mixed layer habitats similar
to those occupied by modern G. trilobus. The origin of Orbulina was a
case of sympatric speciation at shallow depths in the open ocean and
can be traced in an unbroken line.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example J.
On the Faeroe Islands exists the house mouse which was transported
there by humans within the last quarter millennium. There are now
several species.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example K.
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of
male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced
strong intra-strain mating preferences.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example L.
A species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from
the original stock.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example M.
Three species of goatsbeard flower were introduced to the USA from
Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades the
populations expanded and began to encounter other such species in the
American West. When mixed populations occurred, the species hybridized
to produce sterile hybrid offspring, but in the late forties two new
species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the
new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced
fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate
species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plant
from which it had evolved.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example N.
There are two distinct strains of Rhagoletis pomonella (apple maggot
fly), one in the apple, the other in the hawthorn, which breed at
different times and therefore do not interbreed in nature. The fly is
not found in Europe, but the apple is an import from Europe. This is,
therefore, an example of speciation.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example O.
Theodosius Dobzhansky found that Drosophila paulistorum had started to
speciate in his lab.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example P.
In 1905, Hugo de Vries found a variant among his plants. Oenothera
lamarckiana has a chromosome count of 14, yet a variant in his lab had
a chromosome count of 28. De Vries found that he was unable to breed
this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example Q.
Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P.
floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a
few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was
named P. kewensis. It was noticed that spontaneous hybrids of P.
verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three
occasions: 1905, 1923 and 1926.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example R.
In 1950 it was demonstrated that two species in the genus Tragopogon
were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. T. miscellus found in
a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius
and T. pratensis. T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington
was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius.
Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus originated
independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho
at least three times. The same study also shows multiple origins for
T. micellus.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example S.
When the radish, Raphanus sativus, was crossed with the cabbage,
Brassica oleracea sterile hybrid were produced. Some unreduced gametes
were formed in the hybrids which allowed for the production of seed.
Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They
were not interfertile with either parental species.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example T.
A prediction of the Theory of Evolution proven: A species of hemp
nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a
natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G.
speciosa. The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G.
tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example U.
In 1969, almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties
of maize was demonstrated. Not only were the varieties distinguishable
by seed color, but other genetic markers allowed hybrid identification.
The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's
nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection
was
applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that
showed a low degree of hybridization as the source of the next years
seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The
strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only
ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth
year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After
five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from
35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow
strain.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example V.
In 1964 five or six individuals of Nereis acuminata were collected in
Long Beach Harbor, California, and allowed to grow into a population of
thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were
transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. Over 20 years
later, when comparisons were made with wild populations, the Woods Hole
population had already shown itself at the start of reproductive
isolation. Reproduction isolation leads to speciation.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example W.
Scientific surveillance has shown that compatibility of mosquito
strains seems to be correlated with the strain of the Rickettsia-like
microbe present. Mosquitoes that carry different strains of the
microbe exhibit cytoplasmic incompatibility; those that carry the same
strain of microbe are interfertile. Reproduction isolation is
speciation.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example X.
An uninterrupted sequence of freshwater snail fossils in Pliocene
deposits in Yugoslavia show an unbroken sequence where one species
changes into another over a period of seven million years.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example Y.
Eocoelia is a small brachiopod (this one is commonly known as a "lamp
shell") from the lower Silurian. It can be found all over the world,
including in Britain, Nova Scotia, Pennsylvania USA, Iowa USA, Siberia,
Norway, and South America. In several such places, a succession of 4
species has been found consistently over wide areas (North America and
Europe for example).
Data came from fossils gathered at thirteen different depths covering
about ten million years. There is a smooth transition that starts at
one species and ends at a different species.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
Example Z.
Elephants from the tropical forests of Africa are morphologically
distinct from savannah or bush elephants. Dart-biopsy samples from 195
free-ranging African elephants in 21 populations were examined for DNA
sequence variation in four nuclear genes (1732 base pairs).
Phylogenetic distinctions between African forest elephant and savannah
elephant populations corresponded to 58% of the difference in the same
genes between elephant genera Loxodonta (African) and Elephas (Asian).
Large genetic distance, multiple genetically fixed nucleotide site
differences, morphological and habitat distinctions, and extremely
limited hybridization of gene flow between forest and savannah
elephants support the recognition and conservation management of two
African species.
Speciation is macroevolution proven.
And here's a reference to another 530 examples:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Reverend Richard Frank Dick Foot http://www.chelmsfordbaptist.com/phpmail/default.htm" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of Poseur Dave Being a Liar |
26 Jan 2006 10:37:23 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in news:1138329775.077427.242580
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Poseur Dave was invited
And he's *still* lying about the proof.
Calm down young man.
--
Pastor Richard ***** Foot, B.Sc., FFD
Chelmsford Baptist Church AG (Zürich)
1 Pares Land Walk, Chelmsford, Rochdale OL16 5SX, Great Britain
http://www.chelmsfordbaptist.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Questions Creationist Poseurs Cannot Answer |
29 Jan 2006 08:11:42 AM |
|
|
Since neither Poseur Dave nor any his lackeys had the courage to face
the truth in this thread, we may as well segue it into a generic
embrrassment for all creationists and ID-ers.
Creationists cannot define macroevolution. They cannot even agree on
what a definition should be, and whenever they do offer any sort of
vague hint at a definition, we discover that it's a conveniently
*sliding* definition so that no matter what scientifically sound
evidence, even proof, the evolutionist offer, the creationists can
skate away from it into another definition. This is called "moving the
goalposts".
The reason they cannot define it is that they cannot differentiate
between macroevolution and microevolution. Neither actual working
scientists nor creationist poseur scientists can scientifically define
it in absolute terms because apart formt he passage of large amounts of
time, there *is* no difference.
The truth is that macroevolution is not actually a scientific term, but
a term of convenience, used to describe evolution at species level and
above, whereas microevolution is used to describe smaller changes.
But the fact is that there is no difference I challenge creationists
to prove me wrong with scientifically supported argument.
What else can creationist poseurs not do? Well, they cannot for the
life of them scientifically define what a "kind" is, as used in the
Genesis flood story, which is a huge, huge embarrassment for them since
if there were a god (or a designer) who created specific, immutable
"kinds", then scientifically differentating them ought to be the
easiest thing in the world. School kids ought to be able to do it.
**BUT NOT ONE SINGLE CREATIONIST ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET CAN GIVE YOU A
SUPPORTED SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION OF WHAT A "KIND" IS.
Therefore there is no such thing.
What else can creationist poseurs not do? Well, they cannot for the
life of them scientifically define a mechanism which would prevent one
"kind" from transforming into another "kind" over time.
The reason they cannot do this is that, first and foremost, they
fundamentally do not understand the Theory of Evolution - *nor do they
even try*.
The Theory categorically doesn't state that, for example, the "lizard
kind" suddenly gave birth in one generation to the "bird kind"! The
Theory states that what creationists would label two distinct "kinds"
actually have a common ancestor, and this is supported scientifically
from a diversity of science fields.
Creationists admit there is speciation (which *is* macroevolution).
They cannot deny it since it is proven beyond all doubt.
What they cannot get their addled brains around is that speciation is
the first step along the long road to the development of two distinct
"kinds" and that each significant step along this road is a speciation
event. When you add up enough speciation events and compare the end
result with the starting condition, you find that two genera have
arisen from one starting species. This is a fact. It starts with a
new species, not with a brand new "kind" magically being born of a
founder "kind".
Any creationist who is up to discussing this scientifically and
supporting their argument is more than welcome to address this.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hypno" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions Creationist Poseurs Cannot Answer |
30 Jan 2006 12:59:20 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1138543902.096219.204730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Any creationist who is up to discussing this scientifically and
supporting their argument is more than welcome to address this.
meanwhile, Buttlikka is STILL unable to point out why two sentences are
inconsistent, despite suggesting his/her/it (self) that they were
inconsistent!
Hypno
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions Creationist Poseurs Cannot Answer |
29 Jan 2006 09:19:50 AM |
|
|
A good post.
Creationists have their heads so thoroughly stuck in their Bible that they
cannot see the REAL world. They feel compelled to create an imaginary world
that fits their mythical beliefs.
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1138543902.096219.204730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Since neither Poseur Dave nor any his lackeys had the courage to face
the truth in this thread, we may as well segue it into a generic
embrrassment for all creationists and ID-ers.
Creationists cannot define macroevolution. They cannot even agree on
what a definition should be, and whenever they do offer any sort of
vague hint at a definition, we discover that it's a conveniently
*sliding* definition so that no matter what scientifically sound
evidence, even proof, the evolutionist offer, the creationists can
skate away from it into another definition. This is called "moving the
goalposts".
The reason they cannot define it is that they cannot differentiate
between macroevolution and microevolution. Neither actual working
scientists nor creationist poseur scientists can scientifically define
it in absolute terms because apart formt he passage of large amounts of
time, there *is* no difference.
The truth is that macroevolution is not actually a scientific term, but
a term of convenience, used to describe evolution at species level and
above, whereas microevolution is used to describe smaller changes.
But the fact is that there is no difference I challenge creationists
to prove me wrong with scientifically supported argument.
What else can creationist poseurs not do? Well, they cannot for the
life of them scientifically define what a "kind" is, as used in the
Genesis flood story, which is a huge, huge embarrassment for them since
if there were a god (or a designer) who created specific, immutable
"kinds", then scientifically differentating them ought to be the
easiest thing in the world. School kids ought to be able to do it.
**BUT NOT ONE SINGLE CREATIONIST ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET CAN GIVE YOU A
SUPPORTED SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION OF WHAT A "KIND" IS.
Therefore there is no such thing.
What else can creationist poseurs not do? Well, they cannot for the
life of them scientifically define a mechanism which would prevent one
"kind" from transforming into another "kind" over time.
The reason they cannot do this is that, first and foremost, they
fundamentally do not understand the Theory of Evolution - *nor do they
even try*.
The Theory categorically doesn't state that, for example, the "lizard
kind" suddenly gave birth in one generation to the "bird kind"! The
Theory states that what creationists would label two distinct "kinds"
actually have a common ancestor, and this is supported scientifically
from a diversity of science fields.
Creationists admit there is speciation (which *is* macroevolution).
They cannot deny it since it is proven beyond all doubt.
What they cannot get their addled brains around is that speciation is
the first step along the long road to the development of two distinct
"kinds" and that each significant step along this road is a speciation
event. When you add up enough speciation events and compare the end
result with the starting condition, you find that two genera have
arisen from one starting species. This is a fact. It starts with a
new species, not with a brand new "kind" magically being born of a
founder "kind".
Any creationist who is up to discussing this scientifically and
supporting their argument is more than welcome to address this.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hypno" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions Creationist Poseurs Cannot Answer |
30 Jan 2006 01:18:44 PM |
|
|
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:M%4Df.63868$C%3.37606@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
A good post.
Creationists have their heads so thoroughly stuck in their Bible that they
cannot see the REAL world. They feel compelled to create an imaginary
world that fits their mythical beliefs.
And the evolutionists have their heads thoroughly stuck in their own
assholes.
Go figure...
Hypno
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions Creationist Poseurs Cannot Answer |
29 Jan 2006 02:18:17 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
What else can creationist poseurs not do? Well, they cannot for
the life of them scientifically define what a "kind" is [. . . .]
Well, they cannot for the life of them scientifically define a
mechanism which would prevent one "kind" from transforming into
another "kind" over time.
What the creationists are looking for is ``proof'' that a duck
can evolve into a duck-billed platypus. Strawman, of course,
but that's what they're really after--and precisely /because/
it's a strawman, carefully crafted to be both ludicrous and
impossible. As long as they're defending their most holy gods from
the evil atheistic eggheads, that's their story and they're
sticking it to you.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jude Alexander" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of Poseur Dave Being a Liar |
27 Jan 2006 09:41:27 AM |
|
|
Welcome to Dave's world... :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hewy" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of Poseur Dave Being a Liar |
29 Jan 2006 12:13:53 PM |
|
|
Welcome to Dave's world... :)
Would that be in The Outer Limits of dave's stupidity, or The Twilight
Zone of his own delusions?
Hewy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of Poseur Dave Being a Liar |
29 Jan 2006 07:17:38 PM |
|
|
"Hewy" <prof_neutrino1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138558433.838178.314090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Welcome to Dave's world... :)
Would that be in The Outer Limits of dave's stupidity, or The Twilight
Zone of his own delusions?
Hewy
Well, Fantasyland IS Dave's reality...
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Dawkins" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of Poseur Dave Being a Liar |
29 Jan 2006 01:15:33 PM |
|
|
"Hewy" <prof_neutrino1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138558433.838178.314090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Welcome to Dave's world... :)
Would that be in The Outer Limits of dave's stupidity, or The Twilight
Zone of his own delusions?
Hewy
abandonment issues, lol - separation anxiety as the last remaining pair of
brain cells drift ever farther apart?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of Poseur Dave Being a Liar |
30 Jan 2006 04:03:10 AM |
|
|
Richard Dawkins wrote:
"Hewy" <prof_neutrino1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138558433.838178.314090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Welcome to Dave's world... :)
Would that be in The Outer Limits of dave's stupidity, or The Twilight
Zone of his own delusions?
Hewy
abandonment issues, lol - separation anxiety as the last remaining pair of
brain cells drift ever farther apart?
Keep running, coward. Keep contributing nothing whilst claiming
everything. Keep running. It's what you do best.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hypno" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of Poseur Dave Being a Liar |
30 Jan 2006 09:39:22 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1138615390.029996.112530@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Richard Dawkins wrote:
"Hewy" <prof_neutrino1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138558433.838178.314090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Welcome to Dave's world... :)
Would that be in The Outer Limits of dave's stupidity, or The Twilight
Zone of his own delusions?
Hewy
abandonment issues, lol - separation anxiety as the last remaining pair
of
brain cells drift ever farther apart?
Keep running, coward. Keep contributing nothing whilst claiming
everything. Keep running. It's what you do best.
Still running Buddikka?
Hypno
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jude Alexander" |
|
| Title: Re: 26 Proofs of Poseur Dave Being a Liar |
29 Jan 2006 02:28:00 PM |
|
|
"Hewy" <prof_neutrino1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138558433.838178.314090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Welcome to Dave's world... :)
Would that be in The Outer Limits of dave's stupidity, or The Twilight
Zone of his own delusions?
Hewy
Guess who?
Slip sliding he's such a great master
and claiming to be someone's Pastor.
Making "true christian" lists
and all "heretics"
posting are coming out the faster!
Yes, and that would be FundaMENTALville...
FUNDAMENTALVILLE (Margarittaville by Jimmy Buffet)
Nibblin' on King cake
Watchin' the sun bake
All of those pagans covered with oil
Strummin' my six-string
On my front porch swing
Smell those sinners they're beginnin' to boil
Chorus:
Wastin' away again in Fundamentalville
Searching for Lot's lost shaker of salt
Some Fundies claim that there's Eve to blame
But I know it's everybody's fault
I don't know the reason
I rant and rave all season
Nothin' to show but this new Jesus tattoo
But it's a real beauty
A biblical cutie
How it got here I haven't a clue
Chorus:
Wastin' away again in Fundamentalville
Searchin' for Lot's lost shaker of salt
Some Fundies claim that there's Eve to blame
Now I think, hell, it could be everybody's fault
I blew out my flip-flop
Stepped on a pop-top
Cut my heel had to cruise on back home
There's Jesus Juice in the blender
And soon it will render
That biblical concoction that helps me rant on
Wastin' away again in Fundamentalville
Searching for Lot's shaker of salt
Some Fundies claim that there's Eve to blame
But I know it's my own damn fault
Yes and some Fundies claim that there's Eve to blame
And I know it's my own damn fault
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
