Ron O wrote:

Ray Martinez wrote:

Ron O wrote:

Ray Martinez wrote:

Ron O wrote:

Scooter the Mighty wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=2128&enterthread=y

Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny? Haekel's faked embryonic
drawings The theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that
the human fetus goes through various stages of its
evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed
this theory in the late 1860's, promoting Darwin's theory of
evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the
embryonic development of eight different embryos in three
stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was
hailed as a great development in the understanding of human
evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have
been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the
artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was
the artist. (source: Russell Grigg, "Fraud Rediscovered",
Creation, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.49-51) Haeckel' Forgeries
Creationary Links Another Evolution Fraud Exposed Evolution
Fraud in Current Biology Textbooks - Haeckel's Ontongeny
Haeckel's distortions did not help Darwin by Stephen Jay
Gould Haeckel's Fake Drawings - Pictures Please Urge
Publishers to Fix Textbooks by Texans for Better Science
Education

Let me know when you want to talk about Creationist frauds. Remove the
plank from your own eye, and so on.

Scientific creationism and Judge Overton's decision should be a
required discussion for Lorr. The scientific creationists claimed that
they were scientists, but they called their organizations "Christian
ministries" and pulled their "science" right out of the Bible. Some of
them even signed pledges that they would not do science in order to
join the Institute of Creation Research. The sad fact is that as bad
as these guys were, they did admit that they were Christian ministries
and not scientific institutes and they actually did present things that
could be tested (their problem was that science had already tested them
and found them wanting, often over a century before). Compared to the
next generation of creationist scam artists these guys were angels.

Intelligent design, Ohio 2001-2002, and Dover 2005 should be of
interest in the fraud department too. He can explain the creationist
bait and switch scam. They sold the rubes on intelligent design, but
they couldn't deliver any science so they stuck them with a replacement
scam that didn't even mention that intelligent design had ever existed.
The Dover rubes wouldn't take the replacement and intelligent design
got to be shown to be nothing but a creationist scam in court.

Teach the controversy and Ohio and Kansas should be discussed. How did
things like the lie about "no moths on tree trunks get into the Ohio
creationist model lesson plan? Why did the Ohio board take the
replacement scam from the same guys that they had just caught lying to
them about intelligent design? When they found out that these guys
were lying to them again, why didn't they drop the replacement scam?
Why did they carry on for until just recently? What happened to the
replacement scam? Why did it get dropped? If it was about the
science, why did creationist web links get into the early drafts when
ID and creationism wasn't even mentioned in the body of the lesson
plan?

It isn't just a plank in the eye that Lorr has to worry about.
Dishonesty and scam seems to be a way of life for the guys he supports.
Can he point to an honest creationist argument? Before he puts up
anymore of this junk, why can't he put up something from the
creationist side that he is proud of? My guess is that anything he
cares to put up will have zip to do with science, or will just be
another creationist scam. Really, just imagine if he really believes
that the above argument is worth anything or isn't basically a scam?
Where were all the honest arguments when the creationists needed them
in court and they had to testify under oath? Heck, some of them even
lied under oath and got caught. Where did the money for the
creationist textbooks come from that they were going to use to teach
the kids ID in Dover? Why did the perps feel that they had to lie
about the source of the money?

It is weird that Lorr can worry about something that happened over a
century ago and was cleared up by scientists, and he can't come to
grips with the scams and dishonesty currently going on that affect his
beliefs, and that are being perpetrated by the guys he keeps getting
his junk from or that believe the same way he does.

Ron Okimoto

Very predictable atheist evangelism from the elite mind of Ron O.

You forgot the altar call, Ron.

Ray

There is more than one thing wrong with Ray's post. The worst is
probably the fact that I'm not an atheist. The second one is that he
forgot to refute anything that I wrote. What do we get instead?
Typical Ray. Can't even keep his own rating system intact. Aren't
posts like this evidence that the poster can't refute the argument
according to Ray himself? Pretty damning when you put it all together.

Ron Okimoto

Ron:

If you are not an atheist then could you please offer us a way to
distinguish your writings from there's ?

Ray

I've admitted in other posts through the years that I'm a baptized
member of the Methodist church. You can be a Christian and be against
the antiscience, bigotry and dishonesty of the creationist movement.

Common sense dictates that when Christians agree with Richard Dawkins
***on origins*** then the Christian is not genuine. You are one of
three things: (1) genuinely confused (2) genuinely ignorant (3) double
agent.

I'm one of those guys that the Kansas boobs claimed weren't real
Christians when several religious organizations including the
Methodists came out against what they were doing in 1999. The
Methodists were also plantiffs in the Arkansas creation science case if
I recall correctly. We believe in the separation of church and state
so that guys like you can't corrupt our kids in the public school
system.

Common sense dictates that when Christians side with the ACLU or the
ACLU sides with Christians, then the Christians are not genuine
Christians because the AtheistCLU would never support a genuine
Christian. So far, on logic alone, you are exposed as a closet atheist
or numbers 1 and 2 above.

If you don't think that the dishonesty that you support isn't
a corrupting influence put up an honest argument for getting what you
want taught in the public schools. I think that we should teach about
Dover and Ohio in a social science class. That just might get people's
attention and get them to put a stop to the stupidity. It seems like
"real Christians" lie a lot. I'm not always correct, but I'm pretty
far from you or the guys that you support. You should try and come out
against the dishonesty.

As I have - yours.

Anytime a Darwinist and a "Christian " who has the backing of the ACLU
says we are dishonest = the best endorsement of our honesty. Whenever
the ACLU says we are honest, or backs us, is the day we are proven
dishonest.

Ron O wrote:

Ray Martinez wrote:

Ron O wrote:

Ray Martinez wrote:

Ron O wrote:

Scooter the Mighty wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=2128&enterthread=y

Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny? Haekel's faked embryonic
drawings The theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that
the human fetus goes through various stages of its
evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed
this theory in the late 1860's, promoting Darwin's theory of
evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the
embryonic development of eight different embryos in three
stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was
hailed as a great development in the understanding of human
evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have
been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the
artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was
the artist. (source: Russell Grigg, "Fraud Rediscovered",
Creation, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.49-51) Haeckel' Forgeries
Creationary Links Another Evolution Fraud Exposed Evolution
Fraud in Current Biology Textbooks - Haeckel's Ontongeny
Haeckel's distortions did not help Darwin by Stephen Jay
Gould Haeckel's Fake Drawings - Pictures Please Urge
Publishers to Fix Textbooks by Texans for Better Science
Education

Let me know when you want to talk about Creationist frauds. Remove the
plank from your own eye, and so on.

Scientific creationism and Judge Overton's decision should be a
required discussion for Lorr. The scientific creationists claimed that
they were scientists, but they called their organizations "Christian
ministries" and pulled their "science" right out of the Bible. Some of
them even signed pledges that they would not do science in order to
join the Institute of Creation Research. The sad fact is that as bad
as these guys were, they did admit that they were Christian ministries
and not scientific institutes and they actually did present things that
could be tested (their problem was that science had already tested them
and found them wanting, often over a century before). Compared to the
next generation of creationist scam artists these guys were angels.

Intelligent design, Ohio 2001-2002, and Dover 2005 should be of
interest in the fraud department too. He can explain the creationist
bait and switch scam. They sold the rubes on intelligent design, but
they couldn't deliver any science so they stuck them with a replacement
scam that didn't even mention that intelligent design had ever existed.
The Dover rubes wouldn't take the replacement and intelligent design
got to be shown to be nothing but a creationist scam in court.

Teach the controversy and Ohio and Kansas should be discussed. How did
things like the lie about "no moths on tree trunks get into the Ohio
creationist model lesson plan? Why did the Ohio board take the
replacement scam from the same guys that they had just caught lying to
them about intelligent design? When they found out that these guys
were lying to them again, why didn't they drop the replacement scam?
Why did they carry on for until just recently? What happened to the
replacement scam? Why did it get dropped? If it was about the
science, why did creationist web links get into the early drafts when
ID and creationism wasn't even mentioned in the body of the lesson
plan?

It isn't just a plank in the eye that Lorr has to worry about.
Dishonesty and scam seems to be a way of life for the guys he supports.
Can he point to an honest creationist argument? Before he puts up
anymore of this junk, why can't he put up something from the
creationist side that he is proud of? My guess is that anything he
cares to put up will have zip to do with science, or will just be
another creationist scam. Really, just imagine if he really believes
that the above argument is worth anything or isn't basically a scam?
Where were all the honest arguments when the creationists needed them
in court and they had to testify under oath? Heck, some of them even
lied under oath and got caught. Where did the money for the
creationist textbooks come from that they were going to use to teach
the kids ID in Dover? Why did the perps feel that they had to lie
about the source of the money?

It is weird that Lorr can worry about something that happened over a
century ago and was cleared up by scientists, and he can't come to
grips with the scams and dishonesty currently going on that affect his
beliefs, and that are being perpetrated by the guys he keeps getting
his junk from or that believe the same way he does.

Ron Okimoto

Very predictable atheist evangelism from the elite mind of Ron O.

You forgot the altar call, Ron.

Ray

There is more than one thing wrong with Ray's post. The worst is
probably the fact that I'm not an atheist. The second one is that he
forgot to refute anything that I wrote. What do we get instead?
Typical Ray. Can't even keep his own rating system intact. Aren't
posts like this evidence that the poster can't refute the argument
according to Ray himself? Pretty damning when you put it all together.

Ron Okimoto

Ron:

If you are not an atheist then could you please offer us a way to
distinguish your writings from there's ?

Ray

I've admitted in other posts through the years that I'm a baptized
member of the Methodist church. You can be a Christian and be against
the antiscience, bigotry and dishonesty of the creationist movement.

Common sense dictates that when Christians agree with Richard Dawkins
***on origins*** then the Christian is not genuine. You are one of
three things: (1) genuinely confused (2) genuinely ignorant (3) double
agent.

I'm one of those guys that the Kansas boobs claimed weren't real
Christians when several religious organizations including the
Methodists came out against what they were doing in 1999. The
Methodists were also plantiffs in the Arkansas creation science case if
I recall correctly. We believe in the separation of church and state
so that guys like you can't corrupt our kids in the public school
system.

Common sense dictates that when Christians side with the ACLU or the
ACLU sides with Christians, then the Christians are not genuine
Christians because the AtheistCLU would never support a genuine
Christian. So far, on logic alone, you are exposed as a closet atheist
or numbers 1 and 2 above.

If you don't think that the dishonesty that you support isn't
a corrupting influence put up an honest argument for getting what you
want taught in the public schools. I think that we should teach about
Dover and Ohio in a social science class. That just might get people's
attention and get them to put a stop to the stupidity. It seems like
"real Christians" lie a lot. I'm not always correct, but I'm pretty
far from you or the guys that you support. You should try and come out
against the dishonesty.

As I have - yours.

Anytime a Darwinist and a "Christian " who has the backing of the ACLU
says we are dishonest = the best endorsement of our honesty. Whenever
the ACLU says we are honest, or backs us, is the day we are proven
dishonest.

It should be easier on your conscience than
lying, and might make you feel a little better. Have you ever wondered
why you have to resort to the tactics that you use? Don't you ever
wonder why you can't just put forward something clean and honest?
Doesn't it ever register whenever what you put forward gets shoved back
in your face and you can't back it up or defend it?

Your mind is saddled with ambiguous innuendos; paranoid; and obsessed
with identifying dishonesty. Imagine that, a person who believes apes
morphed into men lecturing others on dishonesty ? Basic psychology
teaches us that whatever a person overtly condemns the most the same is
covertly guilty of the same thing.

How do you rationalize what you end up doing? Do you think that God is
testing you or something? Have you ever considered that you might be
failing the test? I could be wrong, but I don't think that God
appreciates people that think that they have to prevaricate on his
behalf.

So I was correct in identifying you as a self anointed "preacher" of
atheistic ideology while hiding behind the cross to preempt a charge of
atheism.

Let me tell you something Mr. Methodist "Christian" who has the same
set of beliefs of Richard Dawkins and John Harshman: the Bible means
what it says. God created Adam and nature via special creation and His
Son was the last descendant in that line. Christ was not the product of
ape evolution. All that is left to explain is why you THINK that you
are a Christian. That explanation will come in my forth coming paper.
That explanation is invulnerable and is falsifiable IF you agree with
it. God will not be urinated on or be fooled by persons who own Bibles
and attend Church. He knows a traitor without even looking and that is
exactly what you are - a traitor who cooperates with the enemy (ACLU
and atheist-Darwinism). You have no source for your Deity beliefs
except to alter what is written so that it accords with your theory.
One could only wonder how persons like you could possibly believe that
God's love shines on persons who alter His word ? The O.T. is littered
with examples of false prophets and their demise.

What about that paper that you were going to write, and some
kind of promise that you made about posting. I've never done anything
like that. How do you rationalize your behavior?

I have repeatedly said I am in the process of writing it. My new ETA is
December. The section on TEism is my favorite and no one can touch me
or my command of the Bible. God foretold of TEist traitors two thousand
years ago. I will prove that God prophesied of the TEist movement. The
prophecy is crystal clear and exposes TEists for what they are:
traitors.

Ron O wrote:

Ray Martinez wrote:

Ron O wrote:

Scooter the Mighty wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=2128&enterthread=y

Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny? Haekel's faked embryonic
drawings The theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that
the human fetus goes through various stages of its
evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed
this theory in the late 1860's, promoting Darwin's theory of
evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the
embryonic development of eight different embryos in three
stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was
hailed as a great development in the understanding of human
evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have
been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the
artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was
the artist. (source: Russell Grigg, "Fraud Rediscovered",
Creation, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.49-51) Haeckel' Forgeries
Creationary Links Another Evolution Fraud Exposed Evolution
Fraud in Current Biology Textbooks - Haeckel's Ontongeny
Haeckel's distortions did not help Darwin by Stephen Jay
Gould Haeckel's Fake Drawings - Pictures Please Urge
Publishers to Fix Textbooks by Texans for Better Science
Education

Let me know when you want to talk about Creationist frauds. Remove the
plank from your own eye, and so on.

Scientific creationism and Judge Overton's decision should be a
required discussion for Lorr. The scientific creationists claimed that
they were scientists, but they called their organizations "Christian
ministries" and pulled their "science" right out of the Bible. Some of
them even signed pledges that they would not do science in order to
join the Institute of Creation Research. The sad fact is that as bad
as these guys were, they did admit that they were Christian ministries
and not scientific institutes and they actually did present things that
could be tested (their problem was that science had already tested them
and found them wanting, often over a century before). Compared to the
next generation of creationist scam artists these guys were angels.

Intelligent design, Ohio 2001-2002, and Dover 2005 should be of
interest in the fraud department too. He can explain the creationist
bait and switch scam. They sold the rubes on intelligent design, but
they couldn't deliver any science so they stuck them with a replacement
scam that didn't even mention that intelligent design had ever existed.
The Dover rubes wouldn't take the replacement and intelligent design
got to be shown to be nothing but a creationist scam in court.

Teach the controversy and Ohio and Kansas should be discussed. How did
things like the lie about "no moths on tree trunks get into the Ohio
creationist model lesson plan? Why did the Ohio board take the
replacement scam from the same guys that they had just caught lying to
them about intelligent design? When they found out that these guys
were lying to them again, why didn't they drop the replacement scam?
Why did they carry on for until just recently? What happened to the
replacement scam? Why did it get dropped? If it was about the
science, why did creationist web links get into the early drafts when
ID and creationism wasn't even mentioned in the body of the lesson
plan?

It isn't just a plank in the eye that Lorr has to worry about.
Dishonesty and scam seems to be a way of life for the guys he supports.
Can he point to an honest creationist argument? Before he puts up
anymore of this junk, why can't he put up something from the
creationist side that he is proud of? My guess is that anything he
cares to put up will have zip to do with science, or will just be
another creationist scam. Really, just imagine if he really believes
that the above argument is worth anything or isn't basically a scam?
Where were all the honest arguments when the creationists needed them
in court and they had to testify under oath? Heck, some of them even
lied under oath and got caught. Where did the money for the
creationist textbooks come from that they were going to use to teach
the kids ID in Dover? Why did the perps feel that they had to lie
about the source of the money?

It is weird that Lorr can worry about something that happened over a
century ago and was cleared up by scientists, and he can't come to
grips with the scams and dishonesty currently going on that affect his
beliefs, and that are being perpetrated by the guys he keeps getting
his junk from or that believe the same way he does.

Ron Okimoto

Very predictable atheist evangelism from the elite mind of Ron O.

You forgot the altar call, Ron.

Ray

There is more than one thing wrong with Ray's post. The worst is
probably the fact that I'm not an atheist. The second one is that he
forgot to refute anything that I wrote. What do we get instead?
Typical Ray. Can't even keep his own rating system intact. Aren't
posts like this evidence that the poster can't refute the argument
according to Ray himself? Pretty damning when you put it all together.

Ron Okimoto

Ron:

If you are not an atheist then could you please offer us a way to
distinguish your writings from there's ?

Ray

Ron O wrote:

Scooter the Mighty wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=2128&enterthread=y

Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny? Haekel's faked embryonic
drawings The theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that
the human fetus goes through various stages of its
evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed
this theory in the late 1860's, promoting Darwin's theory of
evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the
embryonic development of eight different embryos in three
stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was
hailed as a great development in the understanding of human
evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have
been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the
artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was
the artist. (source: Russell Grigg, "Fraud Rediscovered",
Creation, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.49-51) Haeckel' Forgeries
Creationary Links Another Evolution Fraud Exposed Evolution
Fraud in Current Biology Textbooks - Haeckel's Ontongeny
Haeckel's distortions did not help Darwin by Stephen Jay
Gould Haeckel's Fake Drawings - Pictures Please Urge
Publishers to Fix Textbooks by Texans for Better Science
Education

Let me know when you want to talk about Creationist frauds. Remove the
plank from your own eye, and so on.

Scientific creationism and Judge Overton's decision should be a
required discussion for Lorr. The scientific creationists claimed that
they were scientists, but they called their organizations "Christian
ministries" and pulled their "science" right out of the Bible. Some of
them even signed pledges that they would not do science in order to
join the Institute of Creation Research. The sad fact is that as bad
as these guys were, they did admit that they were Christian ministries
and not scientific institutes and they actually did present things that
could be tested (their problem was that science had already tested them
and found them wanting, often over a century before). Compared to the
next generation of creationist scam artists these guys were angels.

Intelligent design, Ohio 2001-2002, and Dover 2005 should be of
interest in the fraud department too. He can explain the creationist
bait and switch scam. They sold the rubes on intelligent design, but
they couldn't deliver any science so they stuck them with a replacement
scam that didn't even mention that intelligent design had ever existed.
The Dover rubes wouldn't take the replacement and intelligent design
got to be shown to be nothing but a creationist scam in court.

Teach the controversy and Ohio and Kansas should be discussed. How did
things like the lie about "no moths on tree trunks get into the Ohio
creationist model lesson plan? Why did the Ohio board take the
replacement scam from the same guys that they had just caught lying to
them about intelligent design? When they found out that these guys
were lying to them again, why didn't they drop the replacement scam?
Why did they carry on for until just recently? What happened to the
replacement scam? Why did it get dropped? If it was about the
science, why did creationist web links get into the early drafts when
ID and creationism wasn't even mentioned in the body of the lesson
plan?

It isn't just a plank in the eye that Lorr has to worry about.
Dishonesty and scam seems to be a way of life for the guys he supports.
Can he point to an honest creationist argument? Before he puts up
anymore of this junk, why can't he put up something from the
creationist side that he is proud of? My guess is that anything he
cares to put up will have zip to do with science, or will just be
another creationist scam. Really, just imagine if he really believes
that the above argument is worth anything or isn't basically a scam?
Where were all the honest arguments when the creationists needed them
in court and they had to testify under oath? Heck, some of them even
lied under oath and got caught. Where did the money for the
creationist textbooks come from that they were going to use to teach
the kids ID in Dover? Why did the perps feel that they had to lie
about the source of the money?

It is weird that Lorr can worry about something that happened over a
century ago and was cleared up by scientists, and he can't come to
grips with the scams and dishonesty currently going on that affect his
beliefs, and that are being perpetrated by the guys he keeps getting
his junk from or that believe the same way he does.

Ron Okimoto

Very predictable atheist evangelism from the elite mind of Ron O.

You forgot the altar call, Ron.

Ray

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=2128&enterthread=y