Uncle Davey wrote:

Uzytkownik "Dave" <horndw@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:1125151364.876212.23060@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

(troll group removed)

Uncle Davey wrote:

Snip

Look at how David Horn, despite wishing to engage
Brother Weatherly on evolution, singularly failed to
answer my 12 questions when I joined the thread
under the nym Nymm.

In fact, I did not fail. You saw summary responses where
I put them for later reference, and you even acknowledged
doing so. You're a liar. But then, you've already defended
that kind of thing, allowing for deception as "the lesser
of two evils," right? As long as someone gets blocked
from Hell (or, more accurately, is blocked from seeing or
hearing things you don't like, like my responses, the Talk
Origin Archive, and so on), it's all good, right?

Twisting that quote still, are we?

Nope.

Like I say, if you don't like lessers of two evils, then
don't take meds with side effects when you get seriously ill.

I destroyed that silly analogy a couple of times. Shall I do so,
again? It's not as if you ever had an answer to my replies on that
score.

You are welcome to help him out, by the way, as he looks
set fair not to manage it on his own.

My response is ready to go. All it's waiting for you is
you responding to Professor Norman, as you said you would
so long ago, and also dealing once and for all with some
of the issues that we have discussed and that you have
avoided, and that predate "Nymm's" "holes in evolution."

We already established that we can make my overdue response
to Professor R. Norman's interesting article the second point.

"We" did, did we? Well, "we" also seem to have decided that things
needed to be answered in order of appearance, and "we" then changed the
rules, didn't "we?" So, hell, I'm changing the rules...just like you.

I am waiting for your response to the first hole, namely the
transition from anaerobic to aerobic life without the emergence
of oxygen killing the cell which generated it.

Originally, your first "hole" was to ask why chlorophyll didn't kill
the cell in which it appears. When I challenged that, since
chrlorophyll isn't toxic, you rehabilitated that "hole." You changed
it to something else. You changed the rules and wanted to play the
dangler. Fine. I can play that, too.

David Day gave you a big leg up with yeast, but you still
can't get going on it, can you?

Have some more rope.

And in the meantime, check out what the Scriptures have
to say about motes and beams. But then, those parts don't
apply to you, do they? You're saved, so you can do whatever
you want, behave however you want, and act however you
want...you can show the world what an ***** you are, but it's
all good with Jesus. As long as you put forth some pretense
to

Motes and beams apply to me.

You may make noises that they do when confronted, but when it gets down
to actually applying the Scriptures, you whimper and whine and pout,
and in the end, you're among the most flagrant hypocrites these
newsgroups have ever seen.

If you thought they didn't you wouldn't bring it up all
the time.

Now how did you figure that? I bring it up because it *does* apply to
you, and you seem to think that it doesn't, except when specifically
confronted.

It's you as a denier of the claims of Christ that they
don't apply to, which is why you level that inequality
in your arguments with Christians all the time, although
someone with integrity wouldn't need to do that.

Twist in the wind, punk. I'm quite simply pointing our that you're a
hypocrite, and you fail to live by the lofty standards about which you
endlessly spew.

Whether I am bound by those standards or even live by
them, anyway, is completely irrelevant. They apply to you, directly.
You are commanded to live by certain standards, and you fail--every
time. When caught on it, you twist and dance (rather poorly, I might
add), and, occasionally, you'll acquiesce and "apologize." You may
even disappear for a time. But then you're back, playing the same
"performance art" all over again. You never learn. You never repent
of the behavior. And why? Because you're "saved," and in the end,
you'll get to go to Heaven 'cause God is such a good god, after all,
and he'll let you in.

I'll say this for Jesus, he was sharp. If the Scriptures are accurate
at quoting him, at all, he knew about people like you.

He has managed to retreat into a morass of personal
remarks and abuse in order to cover the fact that nothing
of substance has been had from him for some time.

That's a lie, too, as anyone who actually reads my comments
can see. There was lots of substance, mostly to counter you,
and if I got a bit personal, it was also in response to you.

"Personal" is your default setting.

So now we see the attempt to rehabilitate the claim. At first, there's
no substance--it's all personal. Now it's "'personal' is your default
setting," which is a different thing.

Here's the deal, numbnuts: I've been at this off and on for a long
time, and I've endured a lot of the posturing, patronizing, and
preening nonsense from the likes of you when I certainly didn't have
to. So if you get that way with me, I'll slap you down.

The fact that
you're such a flaming hypocrite might have something to do with it.
Your "performance art" might also have something to do with it. If you
want to prance around here pretending to be superior because you're
"saved," find another venue.

If you manage to stay off it a while, the strain soon shows.

The "strain" occurs when you decide to push things--when you figure
that you can toss in a few of your pompous or patronizing comments
while presuming to inflate your own ego at the expense of others. I
have no patience for that and I see no need to change. You try to get
by, treating people like *****, because this isn't "real life" and
you're engaged in "performance art?" Huh, uh. Find someone else to
play that. I make a lousy victim.

It is sad to see how limited the author of such great
Usenet creations as David Sienkiewicz and Carson West
turns out to be. Maybe he needs to design a new character
to get some inspiration.

Ah, here we are again with the misdirection. In order
to justify your own creation of sock-puppets, you continue
to do this as a matter of convenience. You've never provided
any evidence for this claim, and it does seem to be one
of expedience.

Keep on lying, matey.

The only established liar in this discussion is you. The only
established sock-puppeteer is you. You can barely read English, let
alone presume to interpret "idiolects."

Snip

After all, the people you mailed as Sienky are not
gonna be best pleased with you, if you fess up.

I'm not worried.

But you don't fool me.

You're already a fool.

Even earlier on today you didn't baulk at the fact that I
quoted you on stating that a fishkeeper isn't an
ichthyologist...

You presumed to quote me, but I didn't make the argument. I agreed
with it.

You (whining):

...fishkeepers aren't ichthyologists...

In general, no. Anyone who has a fish in a bowl is a
fishkeeper, while a ichthyologist is generally considered
to be a specialized zoologist. Now, if one wants to gain a
degree of knowledge as a hobbyist and qalify himself or
herself as an "amatuer ichthyologist," I'm okay with
that as would be, I suppose, most ichthyologists.

...when these were of course Sienkiewicz's
words.

http://tinyurl.com/753ud

David's words:

"The simple fact that one delves in aquaria does not make one an expert
in anything unless that expertise is actually shown."

Who, exactly, did you quote? Answer: Nobody. In fact, it's quite
telling that you didn't actually quote either of us in this response.
You represented my saying something and nowhere did I affirm that I
actually said it. In fact, in my response this morning, I wrote:

"Readers should note the deflection that begins here and continues.
These are arguments or claims I'm inferred to have made, but I didn't."

After that, immediately following, in fact, is the comment *you* made
that "fishkeepers aren't ichthyologists." I haven't made that
statement and, as it turns out, neither did David. That we agree, in
general, that being a hobbyist does not make you a qualified scientist
in that field, is hardly surprising since such a thing is common sense
to someone who doesn't have a delicate ego to protect.

but of course the difference is academic anyway.

It's interesting how you as you and you as Sienkiewicz
never spoke to each other on line.

That's not true, either, but since you couldn't be troubled to actually
gather evidence for your claims and then tried to blow it off as
"academic," I'm certainly not going to do it for you. Subject closed.

I read an article you directed to David sometime back in
which you clearle conceded his intellectual superiority
when compared to yours, and you conceded that he was a
better debator than you. I'm not sure, but your exact words
were pretty close to "I can never win a debate with you."
Later, you told *me* that I was no match for *you*, and
you've said or implied this a few times since. Well, we
can't expect consistency from such a flagrant omphalist and
liar.

It's funny how you remember every word I ever said to David
Sienkiewicz.

Simple English: I read an article you directed to David sometime
back...

How the hell do you expect people to take you as a linguistic
expert--enough to determine that several different people are, in fact,
one person--if you can't read and correctly represent simple English?

He should be his own daughter again, she was sweet,
actually.

So now my daughter is also a sock puppet. Fine. How
quickly that "apology" is revealed to be phony, just as
you are phony.

Well, the apology wasn't accepted, so whether it was real
or phoney ios kinda academic.

Ah, there's that relativist morality, again.

Apologies made to people who are incapable of accepting
them are a waste of breath anyway.

So she doesn't exist. Attacking my daughter as a non-person when she's
not even participating is one of the lowest things a "man" can do, but
then, you're not a man. You're the slimiest of worms, and you, no
doubt, think that distance protects you. You're wrong.

That's one of several reasons why I prefer apologising to
God than to sinful man.

If a "sinful man" knows about your phony "apologies," I would think
that God would see through them, as well.

Gloves are off, *****.

Then I fully expect you'll hurt your wrists.

Gloves are off, *****, as are all bets. Distance doesn't protect
you.

Snip

JERRY
What agenda would you have? What the wife refers to
as "reality anchors.' You have devoted your life to
a belief system.

Who hasn't? You believe there's no God? Prove it!

How is he suppose to prove that there's *no* God? We've
had this discussion here (it's a discussion you avoided,
I note) which has to do with how we can know these things
and whether we truly do or not. In the end, the burden
o[f] proof rests with you and those who believe as you do.

Same old argument by assertion.

Uh, I made no argument, either way--for or against the existence of
God. And before you get all pompous and try to whimper that *I* make
"argument by assertion," would you like to go through quite a few of
*your* posts and have those incidents pointed out? I would think not.
You're such an obvious hypocrite.

The distinction between those who say we live in a godless
world and those we don't is false when it comes to which
of the two has the greater onus of proof.

No, they don't. Those who claim that God exists have the onus of
proof. That's the positive *assertion* (by the way) and it's also the
one needing not just evidence, but *extraordinary* evidence, as it
encompasses an extraordinary claim.

You want people to prove that there's no "God?" I'll ask again--how
are they supposed to do that?

In order to meet their onus of proof, unbelievers concocted
the theory of evolution...

Ignorant, as always. Darwin, for example, was not an "unbeliever" when
he boarded the _Beagle_, and neither he nor Wallace concocted their
theories. They formulated them from significant bodies of evidence.

Humans, ever imaginative and ever wondering, attributed natural events
to all kinds of supernatural, unobserved and unobservable
entities--ignorant as they were of science and the natural world.
Christianity simple evolved from that.

...but it has many holes, even the first of which cannot
demand an answer.

In your dreams. The first "hole" is one *you* concocted, and we all
know about *your* ego.

When you stand before the Judgment Seat, what are you
going to tell Jesus when he reminds you of this little
"prove there's no God" bit? Do you suppose he'll waste
time reminding you about what it says in I Peter? Probably
not. He'll just get right to the point: Go from me, ye
who work iniquity...

I'm not coming to God in my works, I come in my faith...

"Faith without works is dead." You think you can get by, spewing your
bilge about a faith that you really don't have. And if you think that
the doctrine allows you to be just any old ***** in Usenet forums and
still get past that Judgment Seat, if God (and assuming Christian
doctrine) is just, at all, you'll be mistaken.

Yours is just another
in a long line of lame excuses for failing--refusing, in fact--to
behave as a Christian should behave.

...believing his promising that all those who believe on
him for their salvation shall not perish, but have everlasting
life.

You "believe" that because you're a pathetic sod who fears death. But
you don't seem to believe anything else he told you: Turn the other
cheek. Love your neighbors as yourself. If a man would have you go
one mile, go with him two. I could go on...shall I?

If I was coming in my works, I would be a worker of
iniquity, but I have done the will of the Father, which
is to believe the Son, and to hear Him.

The "will of the Father" is limited to belief in that, and that's all?
God has no other will for you?

Were you to accept today that this belief system is
a lie, what would it do to your life? How would you
handle it? Could you handle it? I personally doubt it.

Whereas if you were to do the same, at least the escape route
is clear.

We should note that Jerry's question didn't get an answer.
Sadly, there's nothing unusual about that from these Christian
"intellectual" wannabes.

If I were to find that Christianity could be discounted and that
once I died I rot, as Russell asserted, it would be a great
licence to go out and do whatever I felt like, with no guilt.

Since most of us don't feel that way, it simply underscores that you
are an evil little man. But you weren't asked what you would do. You
were asked how you would "handle" it. Maybe you are answering, by
telling us that you would throw morality to the winds, perhaps become a
serial killer, a pedophile...hey, what limits would you have or impose?
Your psychological instability has never been more obvious.

You think I wouldn't like that? I asked people time and again
on Usenet to disprove my faith for me...

Why would you ask such a thing? Why would anybody actually be
interested? Are you that self-important? "Disprove my faith *for*
**me**."

First of all, that's very difficult when one has the cult
mentality that you do; but when most of us generally are more
interested in "live and let live" as long as you don't harm or bother
anyone else, why would it matter what silly things you believe?

...and I'm afraid nobody had anything to offer.

You would claim that, of course, but we all know about your tendency to
cover the truth.