Posted on 11/22/2009 8:10:55 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
c) All of the above.
I’m actually pleased to see triple-G’s posts go into the godsgravesglyphs category. It makes them easier to find than the rapidly scrolling News forum.
He only has himself to blame for being marginalized and relegated to the kook gallery. Like my grandfather used to say; "stupid is supposed to hurt." (Hey, that's kind of Darwinian, don't you think?)
...and I'm going to steal that phrase for the rest of my time and pass it on to my kid(s). I love older common sense phrases. Unfortunately, my family uses ones like:
"Shoot, boy...dat's one helluva get-up...you look slicker'n snot onna doorknob."
And while I often disagree with Thomas when he ties his conclusions to the science articles he posts I've never thought there was any attempt at deception or the like. To accuse him on the basis of what you think he should have or could have said instead of what he actually DID say seems intolerably petty and quite pointless.
But perhaps that is your point, I should hope not.
First time in a long time I actually, loudly, had a good laugh.
And, coming from you, makes it even more entertaining.
Please do not stop posting your enlightened gems of wisdom. They are priceless.
Again, that means a lot coming from a serial plagiarist. Let me know if you ever decide if you ever decide to stop plagiarizing other people’s work, and I’ll be sure to refer to you as the “former” serial plagiarizer.
Just as soon as you stop lying about science and scientists. I may have failed to cite my sources, (not required for common knowledge, fair usage, educational or discussions) but unlike your posts, everything I post is true.
I'm pretty certain that if you polled the FR community they would rather read the truth without classroom protocol, than the BS you spew with citations to very dubious sources. Now stop getting your panties in a wad and trying to shift the attention every time you are caught lying and get on with an honest dialog.
This post epitomizes the problems with your entire posting history and explains why you have been relegated to the Erik von Daniken wing of FR.
1) It is Charles Darwin, not "darwood".
2) You have singled out Darwin but have completely and ignorantly failed to address the works of Jean-Baptiste Lamarak, Charles Lyell, and Thomas Malthus whose works shaped and supported Darwins treatise. Instead you attempt to rely on inflammatory and defaming phrases like "evo-nazi", "Temple of Darwin", darwood" and "evo-religious".
3) As ironic as it might seem to those brighter than you theories "evolve" as new data and tools become available. The "theory" is not "going down in flames". It is more widely supported today than anytime in the last 150 years.
4) Darwin and the theory he articulated NEVER sought to address creation, only the origin of the diversity of life.
5) Argumentum ad Naseum doesn't work in real life. Stomping your feet and screaming until your mommy relented and gave you a sugar treat might have shaped you personality and debating style but it won't (positively) shape perception of you or your flawed assessment of science or Scripture.
6) Bullying won't work either as neither the intellectual content or the abrasive style of your postings is in the least bit intimidating.
I don’t really like to spend a lot of time responding to your replies because I never know exactly whose thoughts and ideas I’m actually responding to. That’s what happens when you become a Natural Plagiarizer, people don’t take you seriously any more.
You are too clever by half. I've caught you in another logical conundrum. If I am indeed the plagiarizer you say I am then you are conceding that the content of my posts is accurate, thus acknowledging that the refutation of your nonsense was successful. It also makes attacking me personally a trivial side issue since it is the "alleged original authors" of my posts that you have the problem with.
I would actually feel sorry for embarrassing you so badly if it weren't for your distasteful personae.
As opposed to the evo tactic of perverting theology to fit the science?
That's pretty ironic coming from you considering the feeding frenzy you and other evos have engaged in on this thread alone, and many others besides.
They never fail to disappoint, do they?
It's pretty interesting how they keep obsessing about these threads and managing to find them, even when they aren't pinged to them.
Is that all life is about to them?
Its all about the truth.
As opposed to having nothing to say but twisting other people’s words to fit your own nonsense?
Saddle up that spinosaurus....giddyup!!!
Calling something a theology does not make it so outside the pet dinosaur echo-chamber.
Maybe it is something different. I can't speak for anyone else, but the dabate was made personal when the not so clever criticism and insulting of Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church over the contents of "In the Beginning...." A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.