I responded thusly:George Adams wrote:Name: George Adams
E-Mail: wezersfairy@gmail.com
Date: 14 Jul 2008 02:44:04 -0000
Subject: Sanctimoniousness
Subject line says it all. I was reading your comments on the various books of the bible. Your sense of humor is ample, but mis-directed.
Perhaps you would like to try making fun of the koran as you do the Bible. This is an example of my own sense of humor, because I know you haven't the balls. That would take a man willing to make a sacrifice for what he believes. You just pick on targets that you know won't retaliate.
If you are half as smart as you think you are, you know that DNA blows evolutionary THEORY all to hell. You just can't admit it because then you'd have to believe in God.
We live in a digital universe. (Duh... whatever that means.)Information has to come from somewhere.
By the way, Thank you for the advanced math class. I'm sure your regular readers have no idea what factorials and fibinacci numbers are.
Put this in your hate mail. Loser.
------ eviromental variables ------
REMOTE ADDR: 67.187.95.38
BROWSER: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.15) Gecko/20080623 Firefox/2.0.0.15
He responded a week later:I wrote:On July 13, 2008 10:44:04 pm you wrote:The validity of an argument has nothing to do with its author's willingness to subject himself and his family to violent retaliation. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of a logical rebuttal.Subject line says it all. I was reading your comments on the various books of the bible. Your sense of humor is ample, but mis-directed.
Perhaps you would like to try making fun of the koran as you do the Bible.> This is an example of my own sense of humor, because I know you haven't the balls. That would take a man willing to make a sacrifice for what he believes. You just pick on targets that you know won't retaliate.No it doesn't. No doubt you refer to the ridiculous "information theory" argument, which holds that natural processes are incapable ofIf you are half as smart as you think you are, you know that DNA blows evolutionary THEORY all to hell. You just can't admit it because then you'd have to believe in God.
creating "information" without divine intervention. Too bad for you this is not a theory at all; it cannot even define how one distinguishes
between "information" and other kinds of molecular configuration.Explain how you distinguish "information" from other types of molecular configuration.We live in a digital universe. (Duh... whatever that means.)Information has to come from somewhere.The fact that I am forced to refute horrible creationist misrepresentations of probability theory is hardly my fault. Perhaps you should get angry at the creationists who promote such misrepresentations in the first place.By the way, Thank you for the advanced math class. I'm sure your regular readers have no idea what factorials and fibinacci numbers are.You seem to think that pseudo-macho posturing will somehow make your argument stronger. Tell me, do you think that you gain some kind of leverage if you transform the evolution vs creationism debate into some sort of alpha-male machismo contest?Put this in your hate mail. Loser.
I responded thusly:George Adams wrote:Logical rebuttal, spelled COWARD.The validity of an argument has nothing to do with its author's willingness to subject himself and his family to violent retaliation. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of a logical rebuttal.Information is the ability to tell the next cell how to reproduce its self. A feat never observed in mud balls.Explain how you distinguish "information" from other types of molecular configuration.You certainly have the nerve implying that creationists are liars. Compared to all the hoaxes pulled off and attempted by your kind of course you would have no compunction about that since you think you've taken God out of the equation .What's a few lies?The fact that I am forced to refute horrible creationist misrepresentations of probability theory is hardly my fault. Perhaps you should get angry at the creationists who promote such misrepresentations in the first place.This has nothing to do with macho. I detest your straw man arguments. Suggesting that Hitler was a Christian is just stupid.! He believed his was the superior race. I wonder where he got that idea? Also,I suggest you read some real history and you"ll know that Abraham Lincoln was not an atheist.You seem to think that pseudo-macho posturing will somehow make your argument stronger. Tell me, do you think that you gain some kind of leverage if you transform the evolution vs creationism debate into some sort of alpha-male machismo contest?
You have no real argument, just a lot of verbosity and too much time on your hands. I see I *haven't made your "hate mail" list. As far as I'm concerned, I'm the only one who has sent any . Perhaps they were trying to convert you. I think you are too big an idiot .*
Yup, it's another MENSA candidate.I wrote:LOL ... this virtually mocks itself.George Adams wrote:Logical rebuttal, spelled COWARD.I wrote:The validity of an argument has nothing to do with its author's willingness to subject himself and his family to violent retaliation. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of a logical rebuttal.There is plenty of biological reproduction in a typical mud ball. And you still have not explained how you know that it is impossible for this kind of "information" to arise through natural processes, especially since DNA is essentially a very complex organic acid, and as such, is obviously quite reactive. Not that I would expect you to know any chemistry.Information is the ability to tell the next cell how to reproduce its self. A feat never observed in mud balls.Who's implying? I'll say it outright. Creationists come in two flavours: ignorant and dishonest. In your case, you're both. You continually make vague reference to areas of chemistry and history which you've obviously never actually bothered learning. Given that, and your tough-guy posturing, I'm guessing that you're either a high school kid or an adult with developmental difficulties.You certainly have the nerve implying that creationists are liars.Funny thing about these scientific "hoaxes" you allude to; without exception, they are discovered and debunked by other scientists. When can we expect to see the chuch actively debunk some of the obviously false claims in the Bible, such as the clearly mythical Exodus journey which centuries of archaeological research have failed to support?Compared to all the hoaxes pulled off and attempted by your kind of course you would have no compunction about that since you think you've taken God out of the equation. What's a few lies?
And why do you think people who take God out of the equation must have no morals? On the contrary, it is the Christian fundamentalist who has no morals; he subscribes to a belief system where it is your belief rather than your behaviour which determines your worth: "salvation through faith, not works".LOL ... so says the mouth-breathing knuckle-dragger whose idea of a rebuttal is to say that I need to face physical violence.This has nothing to do with macho.I wrote:You seem to think that pseudo-macho posturing will somehow make your argument stronger. Tell me, do you think that you gain some kind of leverage if you transform the evolution vs creationism debate into some sort of alpha-male machismo contest?Is that the best rebuttal you can come up with to my numerous arguments on the subject? Just say it's "stupid" without explaining why? How do you explain those quotes from "Mein Kampf"?I detest your straw man arguments. Suggesting that Hitler was a Christian is just stupid!Not from evolution theory, which states that the most populous and reproductive race is the most successful one. Aryans are nowhere near the most populous race, so they are NOT superior according to evolution theory. But of course, you wouldn't know that, because you obviously don't know the first thing about evolution theory.He believed his was the superior race. I wonder where he got that idea?He was probably a deist. Not that someone like you would recognize the distinction.Also,I suggest you read some real history and you"ll know that Abraham Lincoln was not an atheist.Tell you what, I'll post your oh-so-brilliant arguments on my Internet forum for all to admire. Will that make you happy?You have no real argument, just a lot of verbosity and too much time on your hands. I see I *haven't made your "hate mail" list. As far as I'm concerned, I'm the only one who has sent any. Perhaps they were trying to convert you. I think you are too big an idiot.
You're frankly not worth a website update; you're exactly the sort of blustering stereotypical fundie that I would expect to be posting from a place like Knoxville Tennessee. I half-expected you to be making an attempt at satire until I saw your IP address location.
PRFYNAFBTFCP
