Creationism education bills

[Frank M 181]

Are you being coy? Are you afraid to answer the question? Part of my contention (don't you claim to know very well what I'm saying? Enough to also falsely claim that I'm "making stuff up") is that secularists fear corrupting the skulls full of mush that they must propagandize with the "right stuff".

 

The study of Evolution can provide no observational evidence whatsoever for random, unguided processes producing specified complex information.

 

If the study of Evolution is science by Evolution's measuring stick, then ID is just as much science if not more, and if ID is philosophy by Evolution's measuring stick, then Evolution is philosophy and needs to be banned from Science classes as well.

 

This is made up on your part. This is a thought from your head with no basis in rationality at all.

 

I am supposed to prove a thought that comes out of your head to be false?

 

[Frank M 181]

As long as the paradigm of Science isn't questioned in the least - and putting ID in the same class does just that. How strong must it be, I wonder, to be unable to withstand such close proximity? You're afraid.

 

You've spent no time whatsoever engaging in a conversation on how ID could be brought up in Science class as even a philosophical complement to Science. Saying that "science, and science only" should be discussed in science class is a pure cop-out: a deflection meant to insulate the true concern: fear of interesting a child in the concept that Naturalism isn't the only possibility. There is nothing wrong with discussing - in science class - the limitations that Science has, and mentioning how ID attempts to address one of those limitations.

 

If students understand that Science (as defined by "scientists") cannot even acknowledge the possibility of a Supernatural answer to its questions, then Science is saying that the Supernatural cannot exist; and people like you then go far afield of simply stating that "we cannot consider this possibility": you RIDICULE the possibility, even when science discovers amazing things that science has no answers for.

 

Just because of the hope that science will eventually have the answers. Meanwhile, however: a vacuum. A vacuum that you ridicule when filled with speculations that are not ridiculous in the least.

 

And that is ancillary to the possibility that ID itself doesn't require a "supernatural" designer - but that clearly is an esoteric question you're not even willing to consider.

 

On the contrary, scientists are well aware of the limits of science.

 

You question science with science, not religion or the supernatural.

 

As for the bolded, when there is evidence of this, I will consider it. So far, all of the evidence ID has presented has been refuted.

[The Next Generation 11]

Atheists (those who openly profess it; those who claim not to but still are) react this way to any mention of powers higher than Man himself.

 

The ramifications are staggering. If there is indeed a power higher than Man himself, then all of the impetus of the MMGW crowd loses power; Secular Humanism itself is dealt a fatal blow.

 

Darwinism has given the Atheist power to wield legitimacy of their ideology over those who believe in more. That's why cars have fish with legs on them: to poke in the eye those who express their faith via the symbol of the fish.

 

This information - both ID in general and Shapiro's research in specific - strikes at the heart of the nasty ideology behind such attacks. That it is strong is why these people, and their willing accomplices (which so many of them are quick to google and post, even though their complaints were in many cases rebutted convincingly), have to fight it tooth and nail.

 

There is plenty of fear here. I'm just posting my personal opinions, and the attempts from the usual suspects are turning up the volume in response.

 

From the italicized above, I don't see how you can leap from proof of an Intelligent Designer (if there ever were such a thing) to a power higher than man himself. Why couldn't the Intelligent Designer actually be MAN himself if the cycle of everything is continuously repeating? Who says man can't possess that kind of knowledge in the future?

 

As for the bolded, you view a Darwin fish as poking in the eye those who express their faith via the Jesus fish. Do you also view the displaying of the Jesus fish as poking in the eye of the Darwinists and/or Atheists? And the displaying of any/all religious paraphernalia as a poke in the eye to Atheists?

 

I believe that a hundred or so years of Darwinian supremacy is but a minor blip in the history of mankind as to which group has suffered at the hands of the other. If they want to cling to that via the exclusion of leaps of faith (which is all we've been given thus far...at lest conclusively), than so be it. It seems like the shoe is on the other foot and the religious-types, yourself included, don't like it one bit. Don't blame you, either. It's not an envious position to be in.

[nikki2200 4]

You clearly have no fear at all. People fear change. Acceptance of the notion of an Intelligent Designer does nothing whatsoever to help the cause of those who scoff at those who believe in God (the Judeo-Christian version) or any God. Conversely, those who believe in any God are granted the power of scientific credibility to their eons-old belief.

 

This would upset the apple cart in unprecedented ways.

 

Stalin feared the power of religious people, and religion in general; that is why he slaughtered millions: to concentrate his power. Atheists (those who openly profess it; those who claim not to but still are) react this way to any mention of powers higher than Man himself.

 

The ramifications are staggering. If there is indeed a power higher than Man himself, then all of the impetus of the MMGW crowd loses power; Secular Humanism itself is dealt a fatal blow.

 

Some of these posters aren't even aware the allegiances their ideologies support; some are. Poster are complaining that I insult people, but they aren't interested in being honest, as I never insult someone who has been civil to me (like you). These posters claim that they're open-minded, and they haven't dismissed the notion of "God" or a god, but they have, and do. Their minds aren't capable of accepting conversations on the topic unless the topic contains proof of such things.

 

I've never said that anything in this thread constitutes proof of God. I've said that this provides aid and comfort to the notion, and yet so many of them are babies, and react as though they're being force-fed a spoonful of medicine.

 

Where you see an interesting conversation (and I find the concepts herein fascinating), others are simply looking to vandalize the thread and delegitimize any claim that this does damage to the secular constructs set forth within the study of Evolution via Darwinism.

 

Darwinism has given the Atheist power to wield legitimacy of their ideology over those who believe in more. That's why cars have fish with legs on them: to poke in the eye those who express their faith via the symbol of the fish.

 

This information - both ID in general and Shapiro's research in specific - strikes at the heart of the nasty ideology behind such attacks. That it is strong is why these people, and their willing accomplices (which so many of them are quick to google and post, even though their complaints were in many cases rebutted convincingly), have to fight it tooth and nail.

 

There is plenty of fear here. I'm just posting my personal opinions, and the attempts from the usual suspects are turning up the volume in response.

 

:tinfoilhat:

 

It's all a big ole atheist conspiracy to get rid of the concept of god. Scientists aren't really to find true answers to the mysteries of the natural world, cure diseases, advance our society, or anything. The scientific community is actually a secret underground organization for the sole purpose of disproving the existence of god. And it's war, man. It's on. But you have tiger blood so you will end up WINNING!!!

 

Do you really believe this crap? Do you read what you write before you hit the "Add Reply" button?

 

It is truly unbelievable. I'm now flip flopping between laughing and amazement.

 

I think I have to tell my cousin (a pretty serious Catholic) who is in college now majoring in microbiology, that they are going to make her renounce jesus before she's allowed into the science club. For someone who is screaming from the hilltops about persecution, you are pretty damn quick to make sweeping generalizations and pre-judge people and their beliefs. Is it possible for you to get into your thick head that people are against teaching ID as science, not because they hate god, but because it is not science?

[nikki2200 4]

You clearly have no ability to use your own thoughts to rebut any of it.

 

Because maybe Frank isn't arrogant enough to try to take scientists' work and try to make sense of it when he is not qualified to (assuming he's not a molecular biologist himself). That's why we keep linking you to the ACTUAL DATA that rebuts this stuff. But unfortunately you think it's all open to interpretation by someone not qualified to interpret it......

[nikki2200 4]

The theory of evolution has been studied and dissected for years and has stood up to intense scrutiny. Countless papers have been published in peer reviewed journals on myriad aspects of it. Intelligent design does not rise to the level of theory because no serious experimentation has been done on it, only interpretations from work others have done, it has not stood the test of time because every aspect of it, including the holy grail of the irreducible complexity argument, the flagellum, has been debunked, there have been no papers in peer reviewed journals (save one, which ignited huge controversy because the editor of the journal bypassed the normal standard of multiple peer review and reviewed it himself, and subsequent reviewers showed that it's findings were dubious and unworthy of publication in the journal) It's most famous supporters are pariahs in the scientific community. It has failed in every aspect to define itself as legitimate science.

 

What, it's a science because Behe and Dembski say it is?

 

All that being said, any legitimate, published work on it would be welcomed. Nothing has risen to that level yet where ID is concerned. Evolution has.

 

This. Thank you.

 

Is this difficult to understand? Why is this so hard to understand?

[Mookz 1,375]

Why don't you stay there? Your insult babble does you no favours and leaves you bereft of allies. I posted some incredibly juvenile fake

statements of support for you. I provided no details save for a random quote from the Silmarillion. Which I won't even go into the irony of that

as it speaks for itself. And you believed it. You may label me immature all day long, in fact it makes it all the better. Because this immature

fool baited you, hooked you, reeled you in and put you on the wall before you realized what was happening. And now you're just a talking

bass on the wall except you are saying: I wasn't caught. I'm not on a wall. I'm too smart for that.

So are you about to pull the rug out from under Bill E., too?

[IMMensaMind 462]

From the italicized above, I don't see how you can leap from proof of an Intelligent Designer (if there ever were such a thing) to a power higher than man himself. Why couldn't the Intelligent Designer actually be MAN himself if the cycle of everything is continuously repeating? Who says man can't possess that kind of knowledge in the future?

 

Can't say that; that's a very good argument actually (though it creates the nearly sci-fi paradox of Man having created himself). I'm having multiple conversations at once, and many of the points I made in one post to respond to someone else are often used by other posters out of context.

 

What I mean is that I am personally a Christian, but I understand that ID doesn't defend or represent Christianity (for exactly the reason you just explained).

 

That isn't to say that ID cannot be useful in beating back a social attack that has been taking place on Christian beliefs, however. That also isn't to say that Darwinism isn't co-opted by activist atheists, because it is.

 

As for the bolded, you view a Darwin fish as poking in the eye those who express their faith via the Jesus fish. Do you also view the displaying of the Jesus fish as poking in the eye of the Darwinists and/or Atheists? And the displaying of any/all religious paraphernalia as a poke in the eye to Atheists?

 

No, I do not. Not only is the Christian fish a positive affirmation of faith, but the Darwin fish is a negative affirmation, and directly designed off of the Christian fish. It is clearly intended to be an affront on Christians.

 

I believe that a hundred or so years of Darwinian supremacy is but a minor blip in the history of mankind as to which group has suffered at the hands of the other.

 

This argument sounds curiously like what black people say in rationalizing their demands for reparations. Groups as a collective do not have feelings or memory. That atheists may have suffered physically at the hands of the religious in past times (and the reverse was also true as well) is meaningless in contemporary society. What matters is what is morally correct at the moment.

 

If they want to cling to that via the exclusion of leaps of faith (which is all we've been given thus far...at lest conclusively), than so be it.

 

Atheists who are not activist do not bother me in the slightest. Several friends of mine fit that description. Those who lobby to remove all semblance of religious expression in public (and other) places, however, are different. These co-opt original intent of the Estlablishment Clause, which is why I have often offered the observation that if the Founding Fathers had intended the Establishment Clause to mean what these activists want us to think it means, then they would never have opened each session of Congress with a prayer, and none of them would have been overly expressive of their faith while in the role of a politician.

 

It seems like the shoe is on the other foot and the religious-types, yourself included, don't like it one bit. Don't blame you, either. It's not an envious position to be in.

 

If it's not correct, it's not correct. It's about bigotry, and that grows into hostility.

[IMMensaMind 462]

:tinfoilhat:

 

It's all a big ole atheist conspiracy to get rid of the concept of god. Scientists aren't really to find true answers to the mysteries of the natural world, cure diseases, advance our society, or anything. The scientific community is actually a secret underground organization for the sole purpose of disproving the existence of god. And it's war, man. It's on. But you have tiger blood so you will end up WINNING!!!

 

Do you really believe this crap? Do you read what you write before you hit the "Add Reply" button?

 

It is truly unbelievable. I'm now flip flopping between laughing and amazement.

 

I think I have to tell my cousin (a pretty serious Catholic) who is in college now majoring in microbiology, that they are going to make her renounce jesus before she's allowed into the science club. For someone who is screaming from the hilltops about persecution, you are pretty damn quick to make sweeping generalizations and pre-judge people and their beliefs. Is it possible for you to get into your thick head that people are against teaching ID as science, not because they hate god, but because it is not science?

 

 

Look up hyperbole; familiarize yourself with it. You haz it; a bad case of it. Your pyschobabble really means nothing to me; you're missing the point. In fact, you've had to swerve several times to miss it as neatly as you have.

[IMMensaMind 462]

On the contrary, scientists are well aware of the limits of science.

 

You question science with science, not religion or the supernatural.

 

And when you see science which contemplates the actual limits of science's self-imposed rules (though it lives in hypocrisy, considering the assumptions upon which science is based), you run away and scream foul, even though no such foul exists.

 

As for the bolded, when there is evidence of this, I will consider it. So far, all of the evidence ID has presented has been refuted.

 

Evidence is a priori: we have intricate design, and no ability for Evolution to explain it, which is the point I made earlier that you scoffed at and then didn't even scratch. Evolution cannot and has not offered an explanation of any plausible testable proof of how random processes can develop specified complexity.

 

You'll be stuck on that until you die.

[nikki2200 4]

Look up hyperbole; familiarize yourself with it. You haz it; a bad case of it. Your pyschobabble really means nothing to me; you're missing the point. In fact, you've had to swerve several times to miss it as neatly as you have.

 

You're right. I have absolutely no focking idea what your point is. I've suffered through this ailment the whole thread. I also don't think I'm the only one suffering from this. Why stop now?

 

Look up paranoid, delusional, and brain-washed. You haz all those.

[nikki2200 4]

And when you see science which contemplates the actual limits of science's self-imposed rules (though it lives in hypocrisy, considering the assumptions upon which science is based), you run away and scream foul, even though no such foul exists.

 

So are you saying the definition of "science" is wrong? Or those that determined way a long time ago what "science" is are wrong too? And the whole scientific community is wrong about what they consider valid science, including your hero Shapiro? And perhaps even "science" itself is wrong. No worries. I'll add them all to the list of people in the world that are wrong. It's growing into a mighty long list here.

 

Evidence is a priori: we have intricate design, and no ability for Evolution to explain it, which is the point I made earlier that you scoffed at and then didn't even scratch. Evolution cannot and has not offered an explanation of any plausible testable proof of how random processes can develop specified complexity.

 

You'll be stuck on that until you die.

 

Are you talking about the focking flagellum again?

[SUXBNME 1,596]

I think Nikki and Mensa wanna hump

[GettnHuge 2]

What an asshole you are.

 

That's all you needed to say. When someone points out how pathetic you are in taking the bait... don't take another bite.

But you can't help it.

[Me_2006 14]

That's all you needed to say. When someone points out how pathetic you are in taking the bait... don't take another bite.

But you can't help it.

Bingo.

[Frank M 181]

So are you saying the definition of "science" is wrong? Or those that determined way a long time ago what "science" is are wrong too? And the whole scientific community is wrong about what they consider valid science, including your hero Shapiro? And perhaps even "science" itself is wrong. No worries. I'll add them all to the list of people in the world that are wrong. It's growing into a mighty long list here.

 

 

 

Are you talking about the focking flagellum again?

 

He is. Like Behe in the Dover case did when presented with evidence contrary to his beliefs in the form of real, actual science as science is supposed to be presented, in the form of peer-reviewed papers, Mensa covers his ears and shouts louder that he's right and everyone else is wrong.

 

Sad, really.

[Frank M 181]

And when you see science which contemplates the actual limits of science's self-imposed rules (though it lives in hypocrisy, considering the assumptions upon which science is based), you run away and scream foul, even though no such foul exists.

 

 

 

Evidence is a priori: we have intricate design, and no ability for Evolution to explain it, which is the point I made earlier that you scoffed at and then didn't even scratch. Evolution cannot and has not offered an explanation of any plausible testable proof of how random processes can develop specified complexity.

 

You'll be stuck on that until you die.

 

I, not you, have linked to peer reviewed scientific papers showing that the irreducible complexity at the center of your belief system is not irreducible. It's not my fault that you can't accept facts.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Also.... we've turned MensaMind into GFIAFP. I don't know if we should be proud of ourselves or run for the hills...

By now we all know MenstrualMind is a Non-Darwinist. And Neoconservative. Plus he possesses a horrific, blog-inspired grasp of the scientific method, and logic in general.

 

But the most pervasive trait evident to all exposed to his pseudo-intellectual vomit is self-love. He has clinical-strength Narcissism.

 

In recognition of these facts, should he be identified as MMIAFN?

[GettnHuge 2]

Are you being coy? Are you afraid to answer the question? Part of my contention (don't you claim to know very well what I'm saying? Enough to also falsely claim that I'm "making stuff up") is that secularists fear corrupting the skulls full of mush that they must propagandize with the "right stuff".

 

There is more than just an inability to consider only that which Science proves - even in Science class Science's self-imposed limitations should be discussed.

 

I ask because I believe that part of the fear of ID isn't simply teaching it in class. It's actually giving open minds access to the concepts at all. You're afraid of it.

 

 

 

As long as the paradigm of Science isn't questioned in the least - and putting ID in the same class does just that. How strong must it be, I wonder, to be unable to withstand such close proximity? You're afraid.

 

You've spent no time whatsoever engaging in a conversation on how ID could be brought up in Science class as even a philosophical complement to Science. Saying that "science, and science only" should be discussed in science class is a pure cop-out: a deflection meant to insulate the true concern: fear of interesting a child in the concept that Naturalism isn't the only possibility. There is nothing wrong with discussing - in science class - the limitations that Science has, and mentioning how ID attempts to address one of those limitations.

 

If students understand that Science (as defined by "scientists") cannot even acknowledge the possibility of a Supernatural answer to its questions, then Science is saying that the Supernatural cannot exist; and people like you then go far afield of simply stating that "we cannot consider this possibility": you RIDICULE the possibility, even when science discovers amazing things that science has no answers for.

 

Just because of the hope that science will eventually have the answers. Meanwhile, however: a vacuum. A vacuum that you ridicule when filled with speculations that are not ridiculous in the least.

 

And that is ancillary to the possibility that ID itself doesn't require a "supernatural" designer - but that clearly is an esoteric question you're not even willing to consider.

 

Science being taught in science class is a cop out?

I suppose Spanish should be taught in - English class. And if it's not - we are to assume that English assumes - Spanish does not exist.

And that would be - shielding the expansion of their young expanding - minds from the reality of the real world.

[Voltaire 5,491]

By now we all know MenstrualMind is a Non-Darwinist. And Neoconservative. Plus he possesses a horrific, blog-inspired grasp of the scientific method, and logic in general.

 

But the most pervasive trait evident to all exposed to his pseudo-intellectual vomit is self-love. He has clinical-strength Narcissism.

 

In recognition of these facts, should he be identified as MMIAFN?

What troubles me is that he is willing to watch the US government go into default rather than prevent it with any solution that includes a tax hike.

[IMMensaMind 462]

That's all you needed to say. When someone points out how pathetic you are in taking the bait... don't take another bite.

But you can't help it.

 

You continue to desperately require validation for your stunt. It must have really bothered you that I wasn't responding to you for several pages, didn't it?

 

As if there was some value in "taking your bait". I - unlike you - have honest intent when I post. Whatever shred of respect I had for you and your views is gone.

[IMMensaMind 462]

What troubles me is that he is willing to watch the US government go into default rather than prevent it with any solution that includes a tax hike.

 

That's because I realize the problem isn't assisted with hiking taxes; no country brought itself into prosperity via tax hikes. What troubles me is your inability to understand business from the perspective of a businessman.

 

But this is hijacking the thread.

[IMMensaMind 462]

By now we all know MenstrualMind is a Non-Darwinist. And Neoconservative. Plus he possesses a horrific, blog-inspired grasp of the scientific method, and logic in general.

 

But the most pervasive trait evident to all exposed to his pseudo-intellectual vomit is self-love. He has clinical-strength Narcissism.

 

In recognition of these facts, should he be identified as MMIAFN?

 

Now you're getting into it, straw! Way to claim to be so unapproving of insult, but actually do nearly nothing but that this entire thread! Bravo!

 

 

How any of you dolts could actually believe that I care what you think, considering just how voraciously I continue to post my views in the face of your direct and immature opposition. You'd think it'd tell you that I really could give a sh!t about who you are or what you believe.

 

I know this: there are a couple of great people in this forum. The rest of you aren't worth what collects in my toilet most mornings.

 

You ignore how mature people interact in favor of your adolescent antics; simply trying to shout down someone of different views. Silly, really, how you believe that the words you type actually mean a single thing in the scheme of things.

 

I post for those people who do not want to put up with your bile, who allow me to fight for them. Those who PM their support on this issue and have read carefully what has been said. To them, many thanks. And to you: thanks as well. You couldn't possibly have done a better job displaying why your ideologies must and will fail.

[GettnHuge 2]

have honest intent when I post. Whatever shred of respect I had for you and your views is gone.

 

I'm crying on the inside

[IMMensaMind 462]

By now we all know MenstrualMind is a Non-Darwinist. And Neoconservative. Plus he possesses a horrific, blog-inspired grasp of the scientific method, and logic in general.

 

But the most pervasive trait evident to all exposed to his pseudo-intellectual vomit is self-love. He has clinical-strength Narcissism.

 

In recognition of these facts, should he be identified as MMIAFN?

 

 

psst: James Shapiro is a non-Darwinist as well. By the looks of it, there will be more coming. You will be cowering, of that I am certain. You can only find your voice when it would be drowned out by compatriots.

 

Darwinism is so last century. Be awakened to the new truths which shout that there is clearly more to our Creation than you've ever admitted.

[GettnHuge 2]

Now you're getting into it, straw! Way to claim to be so unapproving of insult, but actually do nearly nothing but that this entire thread! Bravo!

 

 

How any of you dolts could actually believe that I care what you think, considering just how voraciously I continue to post my views in the face of your direct and immature opposition. You'd think it'd tell you that I really could give a sh!t about who you are or what you believe.

 

 

19 pages later...

[IMMensaMind 462]

19 pages later...

 

Reading comprehension problem, cleetus?

[Voltaire 5,491]

 

I know this: there are a couple of great people in this forum. The rest of you aren't worth what collects in my toilet most mornings.

 

This is great, I'm going to change my sig.

[GettnHuge 2]

How any of you dolts could actually believe that I care what you think, considering just how voraciously I continue to post my views in the face of your direct and immature opposition. You'd think it'd tell you that I really could give a sh!t about who you are or what you believe.

 

uhhuh

[OldMaid 2,135]

Sorry, I know none of you will get this but Nikki. But I have to ask... Is your mother perhaps named Lagean?

[GettnHuge 2]

Sorry, I know none of you will get this but Nikki. But I have to ask... Is your mother perhaps named Lagean?

 

[nikki2200 4]

Sorry, I know none of you will get this but Nikki. But I have to ask... Is your mother perhaps named Lagean?

 

Perhaps twins separated at birth.

[nikki2200 4]

 

I post for those people who do not want to put up with your bile, who allow me to fight for them. Those who PM their support on this issue and have read carefully what has been said. To them, many thanks. And to you: thanks as well. You couldn't possibly have done a better job displaying why your ideologies must and will fail.

 

hahahahahahahahahahahaha. So now you've reached martyrdom? Fighting the good fight and sacrificing yourself for the little people too weak to fight for themselves? This is getting better and better. You can't make this shiit up.

 

OK pvssies.... the secret followers of the great Mensa... come out and show yourselves. Or I will taunt your great hero a second time for being completely full of shiit. hahahahahahahahaha

[Frank M 181]

I post for those people who do not want to put up with your bile, who allow me to fight for them. Those who PM their support on this issue and have read carefully what has been said. To them, many thanks. And to you: thanks as well. You couldn't possibly have done a better job displaying why your ideologies must and will fail.

 

Now, that's funny!

 

I'm sure your mailbox is bursting with people thanking big,bad Mensa for sticking up for the little guy! Of course, this claim, as with all of them you have made in this thread, doesn't require a shred of proof for you to make it.

 

 

What's the matter with them? They're too afraid to come in here and take an ass-whooping like you have? On the Geek Bored? Really?

 

[nikki2200 4]

I know... who are these mysterious geeks too afraid to post their opinion because they might get their feelings hurt? At the Geek Club???? giggle fit.

 

This is such a typical internet forum tactic when you are getting your ass handed to you. claim secret PM support. That kind of shiit don't work here though.

[KSB2424 3,174]

There's no athiests in foxholes. It's a scientific fact.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I post for those people who do not want to put up with your bile, who allow me to fight for them. Those who PM their support on this issue and have read carefully what has been said. To them, many thanks. And to you: thanks as well. You couldn't possibly have done a better job displaying why your ideologies must and will fail.

 

Why don't you you provide some excerpts from these messages, preserving the anonymity of those who sent them?

 

Like the creator, I know people are sometimes shy...

 

Lucky they have someone of your intestinal fortitude to fight the fight for them.

[penultimatestraw 473]

There's no athiests in foxholes. It's a scientific fact.

We do tend to be pacifists. Without religious beliefs, there is a lot less incentive to kill those who disagree with your dogma, too.

[nikki2200 4]

Why don't you you provide some excerpts from these messages, preserving the anonymity of those who sent them?

 

Like the creator, I know people are sometimes shy...

 

Lucky they have someone of your intestinal fortitude to fight the fight for them.

 

straw.... come on man... he's already fabricated quotes from shapiro. you don't think he'd have an issue doing that with a fake anonymous poster?

[IMMensaMind 462]

Why don't you you provide some excerpts from these messages, preserving the anonymity of those who sent them?

 

Like the creator, I know people are sometimes shy...

 

Lucky they have someone of your intestinal fortitude to fight the fight for them.

 

Do some looking inward. For someone who rationalizes that they're acting correctly and their reactions are justified in this thread, you and the others sure do exhibit all of the characteristics you like to claim are mine.

 

Check the thread views, porkchop. There are a lot more people who lurk than who post, and they don't want any part of the nastiness in here.