Religions > Atheism > TOBS: A Budikka Thread---replies to his moronic questions for enjoyment purpose only.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"JaBrIoL" |
| Date: |
05 Feb 2004 12:04:05 PM |
| Object: |
TOBS: A Budikka Thread---replies to his moronic questions for enjoyment purpose only. |
the fustrated atheist started out:
1. In a thread started in alt.religion.jehovahs-witn on Sept 21,2003
you stated: "On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is
factual, then the fossil record would not show one type of life
turning into another. It would reflect the Genesis statement that
each different type of living thing would reproduce only "according to
its kind." (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Also, if living things came
into being by an act of creation, there would be no partial,
unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be
complete and highly complex, as living things are today."
(http://tinyurl.com/u62b)
That thread was titled "TOBS: The Fossil record support's Genesis".
Posting such an article and/or believing we were created rather than
evolved is an open admission that you are in fact, a creationist.
True or false?
------>False. To assume that everyone who believes in creation is a
creationist is like saying all Catholics agrees with homosexual's
marriage.
A creationist is an adept or supporter to "creation science"
Which I do not support, even though I find it laughable.
Here is what creationist may believe in as stated in Arkansas law a
few decades ago. Supporters of creationism wrote a definition that
was incorporated in the Arkansas law and inserted in the judicial
opinion. It includes the scientific evidence that there are limits to
the changes within the kinds of living things that were originally
created, and that mutations and natural selection do not suffice to
change one species into another. It also asserts that the earth and
everything that lives on it are the result of a recent act of
creation, and that all the geologic strata with their fossils resulted
from a single worldwide Flood.
The framers of the law were careful to omit any reference to God or
the Bible, in order to avoid constitutional bars against teaching
religion in the schools. However, their writings and the testimony
given at Little Rock revealed that the creation and the Flood referred
to are those described in the Bible book of Genesis. Furthermore,
although the time of creation was not spelled out in the law, they
acknowledged that "recent" means perhaps 6,000, in any case not more
than 10,000, years ago.
That being said, by definition I am not a creationist. No JW is a
creationist.
It appears to me, that Atheists like Budikka, and Carol and others, do
not have the ability to distinguish a creationist from anything else.
They are no different than Pentecostal calling all beer drinker
alcoholics. Or anybody who ride a horse and buggy in PA an Amish.
These techniques are established by atheist to define terminology that
would never be accepted by real scientists:
Either you are an atheist and believe in evolution, or you are
creationist, which therefore for you are useless second class citizen,
who is a moron and should be sent to the front line in Iraq, with a
bb-gun.
------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Regardless of what it is classed as and regardless of whether it
was or was not in the evolutionary line to birds, the archaeopteryx
had pretty much a fifty-fifty mix of reptile/dino and bird features
and therefore represents an example of a potential intermediate stage.
True or false?
---------> Man has 50-50 mix with a banana.. what the point to your
question?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3. The okapi, an animal alive and well today, is pretty much what a
transitional giraffe could have looked like.
True or false?
Based on what evidence? And how can you have a direct "true or False"
answer based on: "could have looked like." in your question?
repharse the question.
----------------------------------------------------------------
4. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html summarises
discoveries pertaining to transitional fossils and contains over 70
references, many of which are to papers published in peer-reviewed
science journals.
True or false?
------------> again you are trying to get a dirct anwewr based on a
summary... The Talk.Origins Faqs per se are not peered review and they
are ladden with contradiction. rephrase your question.
----------------------------------------------------------------
5. Something akin to a mouse could reasonably change 300 genes over 60
million years to become either human or a modern mouse.
True or false?
-------> well let get a mouse, and watch over 60 millions years.. then
we would know... right?
------------------------------------------------------------------
6. It is possible to clearly and scientifically define the Biblical
"kind" as used in the Noah's ark story in Genesis.
True or false?
----------> define "kind" then rephrase the question.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
7. There is a mechanism in genetics or biochemistry which prevents one
"kind" of organism varying into another "kind".
True or false?
-------->define "kind" then rephrase the question.
.
|
|
| User: "Mrs. Apelpy" |
|
| Title: Re: A Budikka Thread---replies to his moronic questions for enjoyment purpose only. |
05 Feb 2004 03:13:59 PM |
|
|
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0402051004.43e5a1a7@posting.google.com...
------>False. To assume that everyone who believes in creation is a
creationist is like saying all Catholics agrees with homosexual's
marriage.
======================
## So now Creationists believe in evolution????
--
Dicky & Carol.....
"Men (like Jabriol) never do evil so completely and
cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
~ Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) ~
~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~*
.
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: A Budikka Thread---replies to his moronic questions for enjoyment purpose only. |
06 Feb 2004 02:43:52 PM |
|
|
"Mrs. Apelpy" <noWTpuke@myhome.com> wrote in message news:<z8mdnXA6nNuDL7_dRVn-gw@heartoftn.net>...
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0402051004.43e5a1a7@posting.google.com...
------>False. To assume that everyone who believes in creation is a
creationist is like saying all Catholics agrees with homosexual's
marriage.
======================
## So now Creationists believe in evolution????
thanks for demostrating, that you were once a special education
student, who needed help with reading comprehension.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Jabriol -ID Moron and certified whiner |
05 Feb 2004 02:47:18 PM |
|
|
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0402051004.43e5a1a7@posting.google.com...
the fustrated atheist started out:
Jabriol, once again, mis-titles his posts. They are not "banned" by
talk.origins......they are ignored.
I also see that Jabriol is craving the attentions of those that put him on
terminal ignore (killfile) and has changed his stripes to get his stupidity
back onto our screens.
I equate it with the spammers that change the subject line of their messages
to circumvent spam filters. They are so conceited that they believe we
possibly couldn't mean it when we say "*****."
Just remember Jabbers: Your words are different, but your breath smells the
same.
<plonk>
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tedd Jacobs" |
|
| Title: who's the bigger idiot? Re: Jabriol -ID Moron and certified whiner |
06 Feb 2004 12:07:16 AM |
|
|
"The other Donald" wrote...
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0402051004.43e5a1a7@posting.google.com...
the fustrated atheist started out:
Jabriol, once again, mis-titles his posts. They are not "banned" by
talk.origins......they are ignored.
I also see that Jabriol is craving the attentions of those that put him on
terminal ignore (killfile) and has changed his stripes to get his stupidity
back onto our screens.
I equate it with the spammers that change the subject line of their messages
to circumvent spam filters. They are so conceited that they believe we
possibly couldn't mean it when we say "*****."
Just remember Jabbers: Your words are different, but your breath smells the
same.
<plonk>
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
just remember 'Donald in Austin', every time you reply to one of his posts
you're helping him out by crossposting to every group he's set you up on, plus
you circumvent everyone else's killfile for him. help the rest of us out and
shut the ***** up yourself. we dont see his posts until someone like you reposts
it for him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: who's the bigger idiot? Re: Jabriol -ID Moron and certified whiner |
06 Feb 2004 12:31:33 AM |
|
|
"Tedd Jacobs" <Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote in message
news:wmFUb.723$Dg2.67148@news.uswest.net...
"The other Donald" wrote...
"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0402051004.43e5a1a7@posting.google.com...
the fustrated atheist started out:
Jabriol, once again, mis-titles his posts. They are not "banned" by
talk.origins......they are ignored.
I also see that Jabriol is craving the attentions of those that put him
on
terminal ignore (killfile) and has changed his stripes to get his
stupidity
back onto our screens.
I equate it with the spammers that change the subject line of their
messages
to circumvent spam filters. They are so conceited that they believe we
possibly couldn't mean it when we say "*****."
Just remember Jabbers: Your words are different, but your breath smells
the
same.
<plonk>
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
just remember 'Donald in Austin', every time you reply to one of his posts
you're helping him out by crossposting to every group he's set you up on,
plus
you circumvent everyone else's killfile for him. help the rest of us out
and
shut the ***** up yourself. we dont see his posts until someone like you
reposts
it for him.
Damn it. I missed checking the 'return' NG's to pull out the extras that he
crossposts to.
Second....don't be such a sanctimonous, illiterate, *****. I snipped out
everything he had written and only used the post to insult him. There was
nothing of *his* to read, so shut yourself "the ***** up."
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tedd Jacobs" |
|
| Title: Re: who's the bigger idiot? Re: Jabriol -ID Moron and certified whiner |
06 Feb 2004 03:19:48 AM |
|
|
"The other Donald" wrote...
"Tedd Jacobs" <Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote in message
news:wmFUb.723$Dg2.67148@news.uswest.net...
Second....don't be such a sanctimonous, illiterate, *****. I snipped out
everything he had written and only used the post to insult him. There was
nothing of *his* to read, so shut yourself "the ***** up."
so do you feel better about yourself now? i'm assuming this must be your
ultimate motivation otherwise you would not have replied to jabbers in the first
place. you got to insult him in your own little way and then enscribingly
<plonk> him. unless you honestly believe your post will changed the course of
his future actions the only reason you did it was to feel better about yourself.
which would mean you're more the shortsighted, self-indulgent, sanctimonious
(correct spelling), illiterate *****. so yes, shut the ***** up. (or at least
think before you open the box of crayons).
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: who's the bigger idiot? Re: Jabriol -ID Moron and certified whiner |
11 Feb 2004 04:45:51 PM |
|
|
"Tedd Jacobs" <Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote in message
news:nbIUb.732$Dg2.78554@news.uswest.net...
"The other Donald" wrote...
"Tedd Jacobs" <Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote in message
news:wmFUb.723$Dg2.67148@news.uswest.net...
Second....don't be such a sanctimonous, illiterate, *****. I snipped out
everything he had written and only used the post to insult him. There
was
nothing of *his* to read, so shut yourself "the ***** up."
so do you feel better about yourself now?
Within the context of the initial post of question...? Somewhat.
I was sitting in my office bored and looking for some cheap entertainment,
so I started reading newsgroups. I'd already watched the Janet Jackson video
four times and slamming my nuts in a door seemed too exciting when compared
to firing up my computer to see what new wisdom was cooked up by the Usenet
morons.
You and Jabbers certainly didn't disappoint.
i'm assuming this must be your
ultimate motivation otherwise you would not have replied to jabbers in the
first
place.
I was merely responding to him in an appropriate manner based on previous
exchanges with him.
you got to insult him in your own little way and then enscribingly
<plonk> him.
You noticed? Then I take back what I said about you being a COMPLETE idiot.
You've been upgraded to half-wit.
unless you honestly believe your post will changed the course of
his future actions the only reason you did it was to feel better about
yourself.
False dichotomy. Don't be so conceited as to believe that you know all the
possible answers or reasons that I may have for any given situation.
Try again.
which would mean you're more the shortsighted, self-indulgent,
sanctimonious (correct spelling),
Ooooh. A spelling flame. How quaint.
illiterate *****. so yes, shut the ***** up. (or at
least
think before you open the box of crayons).
Well, moron. That was a lovely message but it raises a number of points:
1.) What is your point now? The first time you wrote you were whining about
how I had enabled Jabbers to circumvent killfiles by replying to his posts,
but I clearly showed you that I repeated nothing that he wrote thereby
making your entire initial post patently false and irrelevant.
2.) You've now entered the realm of hypocrisy by posting nothing more than
insults to make yourself feel better, all the while stating that the only
reason I would have responded to Jabbers is to insult him to make *my*self
feel better. Try not to be such a hypocrite if you reply with another jewel
of wisdom.
3.) Taking point #1 into account, I actually did you a favor by posting
Jabbers "new-and-improved" email address without subjecting you to his
actual post. For that, you actually owe me a letter of gratitude and words
of perpetual praise.
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: who's the bigger idiot? Re: Jabriol -ID Moron and certified whiner |
06 Feb 2004 02:30:49 PM |
|
|
"Tedd Jacobs" <Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote in message news:<nbIUb.732$Dg2.78554@news.uswest.net>...
"The other Donald" wrote...
"Tedd Jacobs" <Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote in message
news:wmFUb.723$Dg2.67148@news.uswest.net...
Second....don't be such a sanctimonous, illiterate, *****. I snipped out
everything he had written and only used the post to insult him. There was
nothing of *his* to read, so shut yourself "the ***** up."
so do you feel better about yourself now? i'm assuming this must be your
ultimate motivation otherwise you would not have replied to jabbers in the first
place. you got to insult him in your own little way and then enscribingly
<plonk> him. unless you honestly believe your post will changed the course of
his future actions the only reason you did it was to feel better about yourself.
which would mean you're more the shortsighted, self-indulgent, sanctimonious
(correct spelling), illiterate *****. so yes, shut the ***** up. (or at least
think before you open the box of crayons).
What did you expect... that is the common method used by atheist to
intimidate people viewpoints and ideas.. his behaviour would be
applauded in Talk.Origins
his attitude reminds me of Lenny Flank.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "R.Schenck" |
|
| Title: Re: who's the bigger idiot? Re: Jabriol -ID Moron and certified whiner |
06 Feb 2004 02:35:19 PM |
|
|
"Tedd Jacobs" <Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote in message news:<nbIUb.732$Dg2.78554@news.uswest.net>...
"The other Donald" wrote...
"Tedd Jacobs" <Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote in message
news:wmFUb.723$Dg2.67148@news.uswest.net...
Second....don't be such a sanctimonous, illiterate, *****. I snipped out
everything he had written and only used the post to insult him. There was
nothing of *his* to read, so shut yourself "the ***** up."
so do you feel better about yourself now? i'm assuming this must be your
ultimate motivation otherwise you would not have replied to jabbers in the first
place. you got to insult him in your own little way and then enscribingly
<plonk> him. unless you honestly believe your post will changed the course of
his future actions the only reason you did it was to feel better about yourself.
which would mean you're more the shortsighted, self-indulgent, sanctimonious
(correct spelling), illiterate *****. so yes, shut the ***** up. (or at least
think before you open the box of crayons).
wow, that bitchy little screed almost makes me -want- to respond to
the moronic jabber monkey.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
