Posted on 08/21/2004 7:25:32 PM PDT by blam
In addition to his original screen name, there were the "Seven Dwarves" incarnations he created shortly after he was originally banned for repeatedly spamming the threads with his weirdness instead of posting a link like a normal person. Since then, he's popped up several more times at infrequent intervals, only to be banished once again as a returning previously banned troll.
I can't recall all the different screennames, but he has to be up in the range of about a dozen by now.
Much going these days. Almost like an old Lakers - Celtics game where the momentum has decidedly shifted.
Exciting times!
Since you've had the opportunity for multiple posts now to support your claim that "all chemicals" and design are the only alternatives but have not done so, I will take that as an admission on your part that your claim has no merit.
"Because it is no different than stating that "the Easter Bunny did it". A naked assertion is meaningless, a non sequitur, a fundamental exercise in illogical thinking."
pray-tell... how does a chemical reaction then become a life philosophy or even lies?
if we are only what we see, why do we not see our own thoughts? we see stimulation caused by thoughts, but these arent CAUSED to chemicals, but free will. how does free will equate with chemicals?
i know we are more than mere chemicals becuase we ask more than simply "how"
by our own design we negate science as being the one whole truth. it is a portion of the picture. it may be accurate, but it is not all inclusive.
you got that?
"Instead of just repeating your belief, why don't you try supporting that assertion, if you can?"
for the umpteenth freakin time, we are more than chemicals because otherwise we would witness life being formed and we would be able to reproduce such a simple concept if it were the full truth!
If your personal incredulity and repeating your BS for the 550th time is all you got, quit wasting our time. And your own.
listen the first time and no one wastes time.
Learn to spell and use some capital letters. You know, like third graders do. When you master that, we can talk science.
been here before. make actual contributions, and then ill think about it. even then though, for you, i wouldnt care what you thought of my writings on this forum.
Ted! It is you!
Thanks for the ping!
Can't get over how these secular skeptics only know strawman arguments from the creo sites.
"Unfortunately, his posts can be cherry-picked by DU (inter alia) to show that Conservatives are illiterate. From his responses, I'm assuming this is the result he wants."
"illiterate" would imply i can neither read, nor write. yet i do both.
it would also imply i am ignorant of the language i am speaking. given that i know its function and how the brain actually interprets the symbols, and i use this in my writings, i would say that makes me literate in the same sense as Theodor Seuss Geisel. the man didnt adhear to formal writing, and it created one of the most ingenious ways of communicating to children ideas like "greed" and "peer pressure" and even making life an adventure.
if a DUmmy wants to pass judgement on me, go right ahead. i dont value their logic, and after talking to most of them, i realize they will never value all of mine. i find most of them to be quite ignorant. any thing they say about me would be like a football player telling a doctor how to reset his joint. if you care what a DUmmy thinks, that just shows me how secure you are in your social view.
and as for people on Freep. if they like me, they like me. if they dont, fine. if they base any assumptions of me only on my style, i say they dont know what they are missing.
again, i dont give a flying rat's posterior.
"Did you know he's not a creationist, just a skeptic? Told me that on another thread recently."
have i or have i not said that i feel evolution is a viable idea of how we came to be as humans? i recognize this means our human form didnt just appear over night. their is evidence of a trickle of sorts of the human race coming into being. a strict creationist would attack this.
i DONT adhear to the thought that simple chemical processes made us all by themselves. you have no way of debunking this, because it is on your secularist failures i base it.
"Can't get over how these secular skeptics only know strawman arguments from the creo sites."
and i cant get over how these neo-darwinists refuse- in the face of their own failures- to accept their "science" is flawed because they are using it with bias.
Your 'trail' is mighty sketchy, don't you think?
Even E folks argue over which way to go.
Maybe, but he's walked in the US... his name is John Kerry.
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.