| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
01 Jun 2007 08:05:14 PM |
| Object: |
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #7 |
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #6
The debate challenge was simple:
http://tinyurl.com/2o4o93
"You will present your positive scientific evidence for creation, I
will, I guarantee you, completely refute it."
That debate challenge was issued May 12th 2007. Here we are at the
end of the month, and Bob Crowley still hasn't offered even a single
item of positive scientific evidence for creation.
I did ask him a few questions, after having refuted the excuse for an
argument he made.
HE RAN FROM EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM!
That's why Bob Crowley is a coward.
Here's one that he ran from:
What's the scientific definition of "kind" (as used in the Bible
creation and flood fables)?
Watch him avoid it like the plague either by completely ignoring it,
or using his well-tried and tested strategy of completely ignoring it
and posting a bunch of assinine irrelevant drivel to cover his raw,
naked, cowardice.
Whatever he does, I guarantee you that he won't answer the question as
put.
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #7 |
02 Jun 2007 06:13:06 PM |
|
|
On Jun 2, 11:05 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #6
The debate challenge was simple:http://tinyurl.com/2o4o93
"You will present your positive scientific evidence for creation, I
will, I guarantee you, completely refute it."
That debate challenge was issued May 12th 2007. Here we are at the
end of the month, and Bob Crowley still hasn't offered even a single
item of positive scientific evidence for creation.
I did ask him a few questions, after having refuted the excuse for an
argument he made.
HE RAN FROM EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM!
That's why Bob Crowley is a coward.
Here's one that he ran from:
What's the scientific definition of "kind" (as used in the Bible
creation and flood fables)?
Watch him avoid it like the plague either by completely ignoring it,
or using his well-tried and tested strategy of completely ignoring it
and posting a bunch of assinine irrelevant drivel to cover his raw,
naked, cowardice.
Whatever he does, I guarantee you that he won't answer the question as
put.
Budikka
I'll stick to #3 for the moment. Buddika doesn't seem to be able to
follow one thread at a time.
As for "kind", for a start the writers of the book of Genesis had
enough common sense to see that animals bred with animals of the same
kind, and that plants gave rise to plants of the "same kind". They
may not have had Latin names for all the species, which was in any
case an arbitary decision by later biologists, but they knew enough to
know that a lion was a lion, a sheep was a sheep and a goat was a
goat.
It's only evolutionists who insist that we arose from an abiogenetic
beginning which they can't prove, against enormous odds which they
can't justify, to give rise to different kinds without transitional
species which they can't find, to give rise to a species which
numbered only about a million just 10,000 years ago yet which suddenly
developed enormous capability in things of no survival value such as
literature, ethics, law, architecture, music and all the rest, while
at the same time developing huge linguistic differences whilst coming
from genetically common stock.
As my old pastor said many years ago, "Man doesn't want to believe in
God".
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #7 |
02 Jun 2007 06:49:10 PM |
|
|
For a better developed commentary on "kind", I submit the following by
somebody called David Menton.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Species, Speciation and the Genesis Kind
By David N. Menton
(C) copyright 1991 Missouri Association for Creation, Inc.
In his "table talks", Martin Luther spoke of the Greek scholar
Cicero's proof of the existence of God:
"The best argument that there is a God - and it often moved me deeply
- is this one that he proves from generation of species; a cow always
bears a cow, a horse always bears a horse, etc. No cow gives birth to
a horse, no horse gives birth to a cow, no goldfinch produces a
siskin. Therefore it is necessary to conclude that there is something
that directs everything thus." (Luthers Works, No. 5440, Fortress
Press, Philadelphia)
As obvious as this principle of "like begets like" is in terms of
human experience, a central tenet of darwinism is that in the course
of time, things are very different. Evolutionism seeks to account for
the origin of ALL species, past and present, from some single
hypothetical primordial life form by means of random change and
natural selection. Many think that Darwin solved the problem of the
origin of new species with the publication of his book 'Origin of
Species,' in fact, Darwin didn't even deal with the subject, much less
explain it. This failure to address what was seemingly the central
question of his study stemmed from the fact that Darwin, like many of
the other English "transformationists" of his time, did not really
recognize the species as a discrete and real category of organisms.
Rather, he extrapolated the continuous, but limited, variation he saw
among pigeons, finches, dogs etc. to a vast and seamless continuum
without limits among all organisms. Thus Darwin could say in the first
edition of his Origin of Species:
"I see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural
selection, more and more aquatic in their habitats, with larger and
larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."
Wisely, this outrageous statement was deleted from all subsequent
editions of his book.
THE CONCEPT OF SPECIES AND THE GROWTH OF EVOLUTIONISM:
There were essentially two schools of biology in the 19th century
which we might call the "typological" or German school, and the
"populational" or British school. Most of the great German (and
French) biologists of this time viewed the species as a true type in
nature and thus considered the classification of living organisms to
be hierarchal. Many of the British biologists, on the other hand,
focused on the variation among individuals within a species and viewed
the species as nothing more than a statistical average of the
population. This in turn led many to conclude that the entire system
of classification of organisms was merely an arbitrary pattern imposed
on what was in reality a continuum. It is not surprising then that the
concept of the evolution of all living organisms, one from another, by
continuous gradual change and natural selection flowed from the
British School, while German and French naturalists were among
Darwin's strongest critics.
WHAT IS A SPECIES:
The first problem, in discussing the origin of species is to define
just what a species is. Complicating the definition of a species is
the use in scientific literature of terms such as: neospecies, sibling
species, incipient species, subspecies and semispecies. Until nearly
the later half of this century, a species was considered to be any
systematic unit classified as a species by a competent systematist.
More often than not, morphology rather than ability to interbreed, was
considered the primary determinant of a species. As a result of this
approach, 10 potentially interbreeding varieties of Red Foxes were
divided into ten separate "species" on the basis of color and
geographical distribution. The Red Foxes are now considered to
represent one species, Vulpes fulva, comprising 12 "subspecies."
Subspecies then is simply another name for varieties that may have
morphological differences as a result of their geographical
separation, but still can interbreed. Species showing great
morphological variation, thus having many subspecies, are said to be
polytypic. Small rodents are among the most polytypic mammals; the
southern pocket gopher, Thomomys umbrinus, for example, has 214
subspecies! Homo sapiens, on the other hand, is considered to be a
monotypic species as there is great reluctance, for obvious social
reasons, to consider the various races of men to be subspecies (unless
they are extinct and can't fight back like Homo sapiens,
neanderthalensis). The modern definition of a species proper tends to
ignore morphological differences or similarities and focus almost
entirely on whether or not a population interbreeds. The evolutionist
Francisco Ayala has defined a species as "groups of interbreeding
natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such
groups." By this widely accepted definition, two organisms could be
morphologically and physiologically indistinguishable, and even
capable of being cross bred in the laboratory producing fertile
offspring, and yet be considered two different "species" by reason of
their failure to interbreed in nature. Such populations are referred
to as "sibling species." By this definition of species there are over
6000 species of fruit flies (Drosophila) in Hawaii alone! Many of
these fruit flies are morphologically indistinguishable and many do
interbreed in the laboratory to produce offspring of varying degrees
of fertility. Regrettably, the term species is not always used
consistently today. The nearly 150 varieties of strikingly distinctive
dog breeds recognized by the American Kennel Club are all considered
to be members of the same species Canis familiaris because they all
can cross breed, yet the grey wolf (Canis lupus) and the coyote (Canis
latrans), themselves polytypic species, are considered to be different
species though they are known to interbreed with dogs. Creationists
have long felt a need for a classification that would include in one
consistent category all organisms that interbreed under any conditions
as well as obviously related animals that are currently reproductively
isolated.
SPECIES AND THE BIBLICAL "KIND":
The Old Testament of the Bible employs the Hebrew word min 21 times to
speak of the "kinds" of animals. In Genesis the created min were said
to reproduce each after its own kind thus suggesting strict
reproductive limits. It is not clear exactly where in our present
system of classification we would draw the line for a min. All birds
(the class Aves) are clearly not one min, because in the 14th chapter
of Deuteronomy we find min applied respectively to the raven, the
ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk, the little owl, the
great owl, the water hen, the pelican, the vulture, the cormorant, the
stork, and the heron. On the other hand, the species classification as
used today is perhaps generally more limited than the Old Testament
min. It would seem appropriate to include all dogs, wolves, coyotes,
jackals and dingos as a single kind or min, for example, though this
group includes several different species. In like manner, all true
cattle of the genus Bos would represent one kind since they can
interbreed. This would combine seven species of cattle: B. taurus
(Texas longhorns, Herefords, and shorthorns), B. indicus (the zebu),
B. grunniens (the yak and grunting ox), B. Gaurus (the gaur), B.
frontalis (the gayal), B. banteng (the banteng) and B. sauveli (the
kouprey) as all are known to hybridize. B. taurus and B. indicus, for
example, have been crossed to produce the breed Santa Gertrudis, but
is this a new species or an example of evolution in action? Even the
African buffalo Syncerus caffer, the American bison (Bison bison) and
the European bison (Bison bonasus) can be crossed with one another,
and with true cattle, suggesting that all of these animals, though
representing different genus and species, could be considered to be of
the cattle kind or min. All varieties of horses, asses and zebras can
cross breed and in like manner could be considered a horse kind.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EVOLUTION, NATURAL SELECTION AND SPECIATION:
Many evolutionists sight subspecies and sibling species as examples of
"microevolution" implying that macro-evolution, like the presumed
origin of birds from reptiles, is merely "micro-evolution" writ large,
though there is no known evidence for this. It remains a fact that no
one has ever observed a species evolve into another distinctively
different organism of a higher taxanomic group. It is true, however,
that new "species" have been produced in the life time of human
observers, if by species we mean only hybridization, reproductive
isolation or limited fecundity. In 1881, for example, Judge J.L. Logan
of California crossed a raspberry, Rubus idaeus, with a blackberry, R.
allegheniensis, to produce the loganberry, R. loganobaccus. The
loganberry breeds true with no tendency to revert back to either
parent and is one of many examples of a true modern hybrid in plants.
Hybridization among animals is much more restricted than in plants in
part because of their more specialized mode of sexual reproduction.
Outrageous animal hybrid rumors are popular, such as the scruffy dog
"George" which appeared on the front page of the Denver Post, and
whose owners claimed was a cross between a Pekingese dog and an Angora
cat! Needless to say, this was never confirmed. It has been said that
it is possible to cross almost any boney fish (teleost) with another
but this is in reality only parthenogenesis, where an egg is induced
to divide and produce a haploid organism (one set of chromosomes)
without the sperm contributing anything to the offspring. In classical
darwinism it was speculated that new organisms would evolve by a
process of random change and "survival of the fittest," but this was a
circular argument which merely stated that those organisms which
survive are fit and that fitness is defined as the ability to survive.
This unsatisfactory tautology was replaced by the neodarwinian view
which proposed that it was not merely survival but differential
reproduction that makes natural selection and thus evolution work. It
seems hopeless, however, to even attempt to explain the origin or
every individual protein, structure and trait of an organism's
phenotype or behavior in terms of differential reproduction. Indeed,
in recent years, some have proposed that evolution occurs by a purely
random process in which natural selection plays no key role at all!
This has resulted from the observation that most of the genetic
divergence between species observable at the molecular level appears
to be nonselective and thus nondarwinian. Modern molecular biology has
shown that only a small fraction of the total DNA of any organism
consists of unique sequences or genes, the rest is repetitive
sequences (repeated tens of thousands to millions of times). In
addition, it has been found that the DNA and messenger RNA of many
genes is interrupted with "spacer" sequences called introns, which
have no known function. These introns must be cut out and the RNA
molecule spliced before it is transcribed into useful proteins. The
connective tissue molecule collagen, the single most abundant protein
in nature, is known to have 50 such introns! The emerging complexity
of molecular biology and the architecture of the chromosome has not
really begun to be assimilated into evolutionary thought. It has long
been hoped that genetics would provide an understanding of the actual
genetic substrate on which evolution works but this has not been the
case. Attempts to explain evolution by "macromutations" have failed as
have the attempts to equate evolution with mere changes in the gene
frequencies in populations (population genetics). The evolutionist and
population geneticist, Richard Lewontin stated in his book 'The
Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change' (1974), that:
"It is an irony of evolutionary genetics that, although it is a fusion
of Mendelism and Darwinism, it has made no direct contribution to what
Darwin obviously saw as the fundamental problem: the origin of
species>" (p. 159)
The influential evolutionist, Ernst Mayer, seems to agree with this
assessment. In reviewing M.J.D. White's book 'Modes of Speciation,'
Mayer commented:
"One of White's rather startling, but I think legitimate findings is
how little population genetics has contributed to our understanding of
speciation." (Syst. Zool. 27:478, 1978)
POSTULATED MECHANISMS OF SPECIATION:
Speciation is defined as the production of new, reproductively
isolated individuals or populations but even in this very limited
sense, there is no agreement on what the mechanism of speciation is.
Some have even suggested that there may be as many different
mechanisms for speciation as there are species! The reason for this is
simple; although evolutionists are dead certain that speciation has
occurred and is now occurring, they can not actually observe it in an
unambiguous way. Ernst Mayer has pointed out that this failure to
observe speciation has led to limitless speculation: "Speciation,
except for polyploidy and some other chromosomal processes is too slow
to be observed directly. Therefore, the method of speciation research
must consist of an attempt to reconstruct the historical precedents,
derive from this reconstruction certain deductive generalizations, and
test their validity by proper comparative methods." "There are nearly
always several possible scenarios, and it is not surprising that
different authors may differ in the choice of their explanations.
Owing to the slowness of the speciation process, it is not possible to
study the same individual or population 'just before' and 'just after'
speciation. By necessity there is some arbitrariness in the sequence
of events one postulates to have occurred." (in: Mechanisms of
Speciation, pp 1-19)
Ernst Mayer has proposed the widely accepted view that speciation must
involve the geographic isolation of a small "founder" population which
for some reason might show greater variability than its larger parent
population. The bird Tanysiptera galathea, for example, shows little
geographical variation on the mainland of New Guinea, but populations
on the small islands off the coast are so different they were
considered separate species. Other evolutionists are equally certain
that speciation can occur without isolation from the main population.
Speciation has been classically attributed to natural selection among
the multiple alleles of a species, but this does not really produce
anything new as nothing can be selected that does not already exist in
the gene pool of the species. Other possible candidates for speciation
are major chromosome rearrangements such as translocations, fusions,
deletions, inversions and gene duplications. The problem is there is
perhaps no way of knowing what genetic events have played a role in
initiating a new species. The geneticist and speciation expert M.J.D.
White has pointed out that:
"Speciation can only be detected post factum, when subsequent genetic
changes that have had nothing to do with the original dichotomy may
have accumulated. Moreover, to a considerable extent we do not know
what we are looking for." (in Mechanisms of Speciation pp 75-103)
The population biologist Alan Templeton makes the same point:
"It is virtually impossible to sort out which differences are actually
associated with the process of speciation and which are consequences
of evolution subsequent to the speciation process. Hybridization
experiments have shown this to be a real problem: Many species
differences - morphological, karyotypic, isozyme, etc.- contribute
little or nothing to reproductive isolation." (in; Mechanism of
Speciation pp 105-121)
With the development of enzyme electrophoresis, a technique that can
simultaneously map out several proteins of an organism, it was hoped
that we might actually observe the genetic changes which are the basis
of speciation. Unfortunately, there appears to be little if any direct
involvement of the enzyme genes in speciation. Some species that are
almost indistinguishable may have quite different proteins
(isoenzymes) and very different species may have very similar
proteins. Some sibling species of fruit flies can differ at over half
of all of their gene loci while the proteins of man and the Rhesus
monkey are 99% identical! Even substantial differences in the
arrangement and number of chromosomes may occur among animals of the
same species! For example, the mole rat Spalax ehrenbergi, comprises
four morphologically indistinguishable populations which differ in
chromosome number (52, 54, 58, and 60 chromosomes). They prefer mating
with individuals with the same chromosome number but they are still
all the same species and there are only 2 allelic substitutions per
100 gene loci.
THE FOSSIL RECORD AND SPECIATION:
It is now a generally accepted fact that species appear suddenly in
the fossil record without known ancestors and often disappear just as
suddenly from the record. The fossil record lends no support to the
idea that speciation has had anything whatever to do with evolution.
Most known fossil species appear to be highly stable entities that
remain unchanged, by evolutionary assumptions, for tens of millions of
years. Nearly half of the marine bivalve mollusk species in the well
represented fossils of the Cenozoic Era are identical in structure to
living forms. Of those not having living representatives, most are
believed by evolutionists to have become extinct rather than having
evolved into some other species. The following fossil species comprise
at least 50% living species: marine gastropods younger than 3.5
million years old (myo), benthic foraminifera younger than 15 myo,
plaktonic foraminifera younger than 10 myo, fresh water fish and
terrestrial mammals younger than 7 myo and nearly ALL species of
beetles younger than 2 myo. For plants, fossil species which comprise
at least 50% living species include: seed bearing vascular plants
younger than 4 myo, marine diatoms younger than 12 myo, bryophytes
younger than 10 myo and nearly ALL Miocene and Pliocene species are
alive today! These data suggest that for all species of plants and
animals, there has been little measurable change in nearly ten billion
generations! We may conclude that evolution by "speciation" occurs
only in a semantic sense and tells us nothing whatever about how we
have come to have lions and horses and chickens and cows and giraffes
and dinosaurs etc. etc.
SUGGESTED READING:
Lewontin, R.C., The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, 1974,
Columbia University Press.
Mechanisms of Speciation, Progress in Clinical and Biological
Research, 1982, Alan R. Liss, Inc. New York.
Marsh, Frank L., Variation and Fixity in Nature, 1976, Pacific Press
Publishing Association, Mountain View, CA.
Lester, Lane P. and Bohlin, Raymond G., The Natural limits to
Biological Change, 1984, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI
Go to Creation Science home page
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #7 |
03 Jun 2007 10:27:26 AM |
|
|
You know, Bob, when I snipped everything in your "response" which
failed to offer what I requested: the scientific definition of "kind"
as used in the creation and flood stories in Genesis, there was
nothing left to respond to.
Now give **YOUR** scientific deifnition of "kind" right here in 500
words or less, okay, or post a URL which defines "Kind" in 500 words
or less, okay?
"Species" isn't even a solid permanent entity in the world of
evolution because evolution is dynamic and so is a specie. However,
scientists have been able to give a working scientific definition of
it as summarised in this obituary to Ernst Mayer in only nine words:
http://tinyurl.com/2n4ser
"...species: an interbreeding population that cannot breed with other
groups."
Unfortunately, when it comes to creationists offering a definition of
"kind" which is absolutely fixed and eternally immutable, and ought to
be the easiest thing in the world to define, not one of them can, as
Lenny Flank makes clear in this article:
http://tinyurl.com/327ng9
How pathetic is that?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #7 |
03 Jun 2007 07:41:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 08:27:26 -0700, Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <1180884446.009820.21560@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
You know, Bob, when I snipped everything in your "response" which
failed to offer what I requested: the scientific definition of "kind"
as used in the creation and flood stories in Genesis, there was
nothing left to respond to.
Now give **YOUR** scientific deifnition of "kind" right here in 500
words or less, okay, or post a URL which defines "Kind" in 500 words
or less, okay?
"Species" isn't even a solid permanent entity in the world of
evolution because evolution is dynamic and so is a specie. However,
scientists have been able to give a working scientific definition of
it as summarised in this obituary to Ernst Mayer in only nine words:
http://tinyurl.com/2n4ser
"...species: an interbreeding population that cannot breed with other
groups."
Unfortunately, when it comes to creationists offering a definition of
"kind" which is absolutely fixed and eternally immutable, and ought to
be the easiest thing in the world to define, not one of them can, as
Lenny Flank makes clear in this article:
http://tinyurl.com/327ng9
How pathetic is that?
So pitful that Bob's ignorance still makes me shake my head in shame.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Bob Crowley Proves He's the Most Stupid Person In alt.atheism |
03 Jun 2007 10:16:24 AM |
|
|
On Jun 2, 6:13 pm, wrote:
[previous snipped]
I'll stick to #3 for the moment. Buddika doesn't seem to be able to
follow one thread at a time.
Where did I ever make a rule like that? Who says there's a rule like
that? I specifically **TOLD** you what this series was about. That's
why you're fundamentally stupid, Bob. You won't listen and you're
irremediably ineducable.
And you've proven yourself to be fundamentally stupid here too. Which
part of "What's the scientific definition of "kind" (as used in the
Bible
creation and flood fables)? " is it that's above your reading grade?
I specifically asked for a **SCIENTIFIC** definition, and you run to
the Bible? Where's the *science*, Bob?
So you haven't understood the question (which means you're stupid)
OR
you're too stupid to know the difference between science and mythology
(which would explain a lot)
OR
you're still running from the question *exactly* as you did in our
"debate", which means you're a coward.
Which is it, Bob?
It's only evolutionists who insist that we arose from an abiogenetic
beginning
This is another reason why you're stupid. Evolution and abiogenesis
are two separate sciences. You've been told this repeatedly.
There's a wealth of evidence for both, especially for evolution and
you're aware of this because I've slammed your idiotic slack-jawed
drooling face smack up against it ad nauseam. Yet here you are
**LYING** about it again.
That's why you're a liar, Bob.
The fact that you demand every single step from science (which has
given so much - and has given far more than is needed to meet any
"beyond reasonable doubt" requirement - and has given far more than
creation has - which is zilch so far as I've pointed out to you
endlessly) while not being able to provide **EVEN ONE SINGLE STEP
SUPPORTING YOUR CREATION MYTH** is why you're a pathetic hypocrite.
which they can't prove, against enormous odds
I'll be addressing this example of your colossal stupidity and
ignorance in another thread in this series very shortly. Be prepared
to have your stupid ***** kicked again, Bob,
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley Proves He's the Most Stupid Person In alt.atheism |
04 Jun 2007 01:43:35 AM |
|
|
"Bob Crowley Proves He's the Most Stupid Person In alt.atheism"
I agree.
And he's up against some pretty stiff competition.
He'd make a GREAT Jehova's Witless.
They are always looking for totally clueless morons to sucker in.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley Proves He's the Most Stupid Person In alt.atheism |
04 Jun 2007 03:20:15 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:52d7631lgd2ucjp3iq3r77v6cigusn2iv6@4ax.com...
"Bob Crowley Proves He's the Most Stupid Person In alt.atheism"
I agree.
And he's up against some pretty stiff competition.
He'd make a GREAT Jehova's Witless.
They are always looking for totally clueless morons to sucker in.
--
Send him to my NG, ARJ-W, as we can always use another witless witness. ;-)
We already have some habitual liars, some homicidal sociopaths, some
slanderers, a forger .......
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley Proves He's the Most Stupid Person In alt.atheism |
04 Jun 2007 04:31:14 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 15:20:15 -0500, "The Apostate"
<durondae_@_hotpop.com> wrote:
- Refer: <f41s68$a5q$1@registered.motzarella.org>
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:52d7631lgd2ucjp3iq3r77v6cigusn2iv6@4ax.com...
"Bob Crowley Proves He's the Most Stupid Person In alt.atheism"
I agree.
And he's up against some pretty stiff competition.
He'd make a GREAT Jehova's Witless.
They are always looking for totally clueless morons to sucker in.
--
Send him to my NG, ARJ-W, as we can always use another witless witness. ;-)
We already have some habitual liars, some homicidal sociopaths, some
slanderers, a forger .......
And that is just Jabriol!
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #16
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #18
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #2
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #13
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #6
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #1
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #7
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #4
| Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #20
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #8
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #12
Yang is a LIAR
Proof Absolute that JABRIOL is BOTH a JEHOVAH'S WITNESS and a LIAR
Re: Moore is a liar
|
|
|
