Skip to comments.Darwinists Trick Themselves in Texas
Posted on 03/30/2009 12:58:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Liberty. I will be posting an ever expanding version of the above, everytime Mr. Lawyer attempts to slime Creationists/IDers by falsely linking them to Islamist terrorism.
Never heard of it before. Do you know the history behind it?
No, I don’t know the history.
First I ever heard of it was on that thread.
Whatever the case, I see a lot of those tactics employed on these threads.
LOL. SOME of the Mormons on the other threads argue the exact same way.
Atlaw and his ilk are at the end of their rope. - There is nothing really left of the TOE, and they have run out of plausible misdirection to feed to the news media while they swim in circles in their lifeless swamp searching for a new beginning.
Ok class! - Each of you has the materials for the next exercise on your desk; a cucumber, and a condum....
==Atlaw and his ilk are at the end of their rope.
It certainly seems that way given the desperate (and outright dishonest) measures they use to prop up the increasingly discredited Temple of Darwinistic Materialism.
The Flamer’s Bible
Revision 1: Dec. 2, 1987 by Joe Talmadge
In the time I have been posting to net, I have encountered flame wars of epic proportions (Brahms Gang vs. Tim Maroney), and flame wars of a more modest nature (MIT vs. CIT). Flaming has evolved into a highly-stylized art form, complete with unwritten rules and guidelines.
Here, I have attempted to document the Art of Flaming, in such a way as it will be interesting to old hands (flame masters) and novices (virgins) alike. Without a further ado, then, I present:
The Twelve Commandments of Flaming
1. Make things up about your opponent: It’s important to make your lies sound true. Preface your argument with the word “clearly.” “Clearly, Fred Flooney is a liar, and a dirtball to boot.”
2. Be an armchair psychologist: You’re a smart person. You’ve heard of Freud. You took a psychology course in college. Clearly, you’re qualified to psychoanalyze your opponent. “Polly Purebread, by using the word ‘zucchini’ in her posting, shows she has a bad case of penis envy.”
3. Cross-post your flames: Everyone on the net is just waiting for the next literary masterpiece to leave your terminal. From rec.arts.wobegon to alt.gourmand, they’re all holding their breaths until your next flame. Therefore, post everywhere.
4. Conspiracies abound: If everyone’s against you, the reason can’t *possibly* be that you’re a ********. There’s obviously a conspiracy against you, and you will be doing the entire net a favor by exposing it.
5. Lawsuit threats: This is the reverse of Rule #4 (sort of like the Yin & Yang of flaming). Threatening a lawsuit is always considered to be in good form. “By saying that I’ve posted to the wrong group, Bertha has libeled me, slandered me, and sodomized me. See you in court, Bertha.”
6. Force them to document their claims: Even if Harry Hoinkus states outright that he likes tomato sauce on his pasta, you should demand documentation. If Newsweek hasn’t written an article on Harry’s pasta preferences, then Harry’s obviously lying.
7. Use foreign phrases: French is good, but Latin is the lingua franca of flaming. You should use the words “ad hominem” at least three times per article. Other favorite Latin phrases are “ad nauseum,” “vini, vidi, vici,” and “fettuccini alfredo.”
8. Tell ‘em how smart you are: Why use intelligent arguments to convince them you’re smart when all you have to do is tell them? State that you’re a member of Mensa or Mega or Dorks of America. Tell them the scores you received on every exam since high school. “I got an 800 on my SATs, LSATs, GREs, MCATs, and I can also spell the word ‘premeiotic’.”
9. Accuse your opponent of censorship. It is your right as an American citizen to post whatever the hell you want to the net (as guaranteed by the 37th Amendment, I think). Anyone who tries to limit your cross-posting or move a flame war to email is either a communist, a fascist, or both.
10. Doubt their existence: You’ve never actually seen your opponent, have you? And since you’re the center of the universe, you should have seen them by now, shouldn’t you? Therefore, THEY DON’T EXIST! This is the beauty of flamers’ logic.
11. Lie, cheat, steal, leave the toilet seat up.
12. When in doubt, insult: If you forget the other 11 rules, remember this one. At some point during your wonderful career as a flamer you will undoubtedly end up in a flame war with someone who is better than you. This person will expose your lies, tear apart your arguments, make you look generally like a bozo. At this point, there’s only one thing to do: insult the dirtbag!!! “Oh yeah? Well, your mother does strange things with vegetables.”
My flames will be witty, insulting, interesting, funny, caustic, or sarcastic, but never, ever, will they be boring.
Here endeth the scriptures.
Let’s not forget that a led-off with #1 !!!
I'm not sure where in Hebrews you can find anything that would contradict GGG. However, many Christians(if not the vast majority) believe along the lines of the Nicene Creed. Anyway, my King James version of the Bible states Hebrews 1:2,5,8-10 thusly.
Hbr 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Hbr 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Hbr 1:8 But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Hbr 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, [even] thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Hbr 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
There are no lengths to which a Christian hater will not go to discredit Christianity or creationism.
It says way more about him than it does about you.
Anyone with a lick of sense can see right through that tactic.
Don’t sweat it. When they resort to attacks like that, you know that they’ve reached the end of anything reasonable or intelligent that they have to say on the subject.
Then why did Christ accept worship if he taught to worship the Father only? Matt 2:2, Matt 2:11, Matt 28:17, Luke 24:52, John 9:38.
Wasn't Herod struck down because he accepted worship as a god and didn't give God praise in Acts 12? Wouldn't Jesus be subject to the same punishment if he wrongly accepted worship instead of giving praise to God?
Then why does Heb 1:6 speak of the angels worshipping God's Son?
Aren't you focused on a half-truth?
Those kind of attacks I consider as water on a duck’s back. It fairly well demonstrates your opponent’s lack of intellectual ammunition, commonly known as pissant.
Thanks, Metmom. Just wanted everyone to be aware that we have a provocateur running loose on FR who is going around claiming that Christian creationists are the paid foot-soldiers of Islamo-terrorism.
So I take it you folks are in full agreement with GGG and his Islamic compatriot Adnan Oktar (a/k/a Harun Yahya) that:
— “the majority of radical Islamist terrorists despise creation, and are materialist to the core”;
— radical Islamic terrorists are actually “hardcore Commie-Materialists who worship at the alter of evolutionary materialism”;
— “the more Muslims who become creationists (even if its of the Muslim variety) the more that helps the US and its allies in the War on Terror”; and
— that 9/11 was actually perpetrated by Darwinist, materialist, atheists who were just disguised as radical Muslims.
Why does that name (pissant) ring a bell?
Comic relief has arrived!
Thats pretty much all they have.
So I take it you folks are in full agreement with GGG and his Islamic compatriot Adnan Oktar (a/k/a Harun Yahya) that: [excerpt]Have you stopped beating your wife?
You can take anything you want from whatever you want. That doesn’t make you correct or deserving of a reply. Adolph Hitler certainly believed that the sun appeared in the East, so do I, but that does not make me a Nazi(Godwin’s law may be invoked if you like, you seem to be in that rut).
Comic relief has arrived!Or in my case, research material.
Let me set the record straight, Mr. Lawyer:
the majority of radical Islamist terrorists despise creation, and are materialist to the core;
radical Islamic terrorists are actually hardcore Commie-Materialists who worship at the alter of evolutionary materialism;
Not all, but many...pehaps a majority.
the more Muslims who become creationists (even if its of the Muslim variety) the more that helps the US and its allies in the War on Terror;
Since Muslim creationists denounce terrorism carried out in the name of Islam, this is a given.
that 9/11 was actually perpetrated by Darwinist, materialist, atheists who were just disguised as radical Muslims.
I don’t think I have ever said that. I have documented that Bin Laden’s #2 man is a known KGB agent. I have also documented that many of the hijackers ate pork, drank alcohol, did not repay debts, and frequented nudie bars. All are a big no-no in Islam. These are not the hallmarks of religiously observant Muslims.
Actually, a simple yes or no would suffice here (unlike the question you proffer as allegedly analogous).
PS I have also documented that the majority of Hezbollah suicide bombers in Lebanon come from secular Communist and socialist parties. And lets not forget that the Tamil Tigers, the terrorist group that carries out more suicide bombings than any other terrorist group, are officially Marxist-Leninist. How do you explain that, Mr. Lawyer?
==Actually, a simple yes or no would suffice here
Do you have a problem being reminded of how you operate, Mr. Lawyer?
==though here, of course, I am referencing GGGs specific assertions, as well as, admittedly, the words of the Islamic-Creationist from whom he evidently lifted his assertions
Again, you have no idea what you’re talking about, Mr. Lawyer. Every assertion I have made I have found doing my own independent research, and not a one of them comes from “Islamic-Creationists”. You really are some piece of work.
And the Tamil Tigers? You’ll recall that we’re talking about radical Islam, GGG. Try to focus.
Right. The similarity of your assertions to those of Harun Yahya is just remarkable coincidence.
Get real, atlaw. GGG is NOT a "Muslim apologist." And all your histrionics will not make him one.
Whatever similarities you see are superficial at best. The only reason why I know about Yahya is because I stumbled upon one of his online books years ago while doing research for an article about the communist roots of Islamist terrorism. Just because Yahya is aware that there are many secular Middle Eastern terrorist groups who are mistakenly billed as Muslim Fundamentalists in the West, does not mean that I got my information from him or his outfit. You need to stop the practice of deliberate misrepresentation and putting words in people’s mouths, or I start hitting the abuse button.
Oh my sides....
Interseting choice of words there, oh scholarly one.
I “swooped in” in 2001. And you seem to be rather uncomfortable at the moment. Why is that?
Hope you didn’t break any ribs.
I’m uncomfortable that a lying, dissembling, provocateur such as yourself is still on FR.
It’s not your private creationist playground, newbie.
FR does not tolerate liars, dissemblers and provocateurs no matter how long they have been here, Mr. Lawyer.
Walks like a duck, and all that. By the way, do you agree with GGG’s assertions?
Exactly what assertions have got you so torqued off? Give me a list. I'll answer you point for point.
Let’s see if Mr. Lawyer can give you a list without twisting my words out of context!
It is not alleged. You brought the guy in. It is a fact that you are using a guilt by association by association by association. First, I doubt that GGG even knew the guy before you mentioned him. Second, the fact that Harunan(or whatever) is a Muslim is the second association. Third, the fact that islamic terrorists are Muslim(certainly obvious) you attempt to establish a third association. Quite a feat of legerdemain(and not in the good sense). And to top off your "tour de force"(again not in a good sense) you attempt a fourth red herring. What I do or fail to do does not support your argument with GGG.
As for your question, read the thread. It isn't that hard to follow. If you really need a map, posts 66, 73, 75, and 79 (as well as my original post, which you evidently read), will suffice.
Map? We don't need a map for something that leads nowhere. It is not our task to debunk an unsupported assertion/accusation/red herring. You are supposed to provide some sort of logical argument which logically connects the points you make. Assertions are not a logical argument.
Thanks, AC. I knew about Yahya long before Mr. Lawyer brought him up, but I don’t base what I think about Islamist terrorism on his writings. He’s a bit wacky here and there re: masonic conspiracies, etc. I merely pointed out (only after Mr. Lawyer brought it up and tried to put words and intentions in my mouth) that the growing Islamic creationist movement is good news for the War on Terror because they tend to oppose the same terror tactics that we do.
==Torqued off? Sheesh. Looks to me like the creationist mob GGG summoned with his double-posted arm-waving fit are the ones with their hair on fire
I was warning my fellow creationists and IDers about your lies and provocations. If you pull this kind of crap with me, you are likely to pull it with them. Better that they know about your serpentine tongue now, rather get ambushed by you later.
Well, that still does not justify a guilt by "association". I own several copies of "The Origin of Species", a copy of "Das Kapital", and "Manifesto of the Communist Party". I must be really guilty.
LOL!!!! LOL again!!!
I post to GGG, and he wrangles up the pitchfork wielding villagers in response. [excerpt]If you don't like us pitchfork wielding villagers, perhaps you should just go hide out over at DC.