A good creation-evolution debate was held last night on the yahoo chat rooms, and I am pleased to report it was a clear victory for the creationists involved (including my good self).
But the key move was made by an old cyber-pal of mine, Dan from Toronto, who said this:
In order to qualify as 'scientific', a hypothesis must be capable of being tested. That means that it must not only be capable of being observed, but also it must be falsifiable. Yet in spite of a century and a half of this theory doing the milkrounds, not one evolutionist has devised a test which is capable of falsifying the theory of evolution. Thus the theory of evolution is not true science at all. In fact, it is much more akin to holding blind religious faith.
Not a single evolutionist had an answer to THAT. Well argued, Dan my friend. So if evolution should be taught is science class, so should creationism. Either both or science or neither is science.
67 comments:
All you'd need to falsify it would be a horse to give birth to a chicken, or a bird to be born with mammal like intestines or genitals, or even a cabbit. There's millions of ways it could be falsified, and, as of the yet, it hasn't happened. - MaryCakes
"A good creation-evolution debate was held last night on the yahoo chat rooms"
Which Yahoo Chat Room?
(The only ones I've seen creationists score any 'victory' are ones where they administer the group and then ban anyone who posts things they can't answer. I've seen creationists ban other creationists from discussions after they questioned the ethics of such things as out of context quoting or because they used a version of the bible other than the KJV.)
Of course, the reason I ask is so we can see the 'chat' in its entirety, rather than a condensed report from someone whose reliability is suspect.
Buddy, we have succesfully tested evolution in bacteria, frutiflys, and geckos..so there is you answer..guess you lose garven.
Dear Garven, I can no longer be a Christian. The evidence against us is too strong and i have been having doubts for many months now. PLease forgive me but I have given into my homosexual urges. But, I still think these atheist have been cruel towards you and you should continue sticking it out. Mabye you will see the light, but in the meantime I have some soul searching to do.
*Atheists
Garvan please disregard that last comment it was not posted by me.
It seems evolution is not the only thing which atheists lie about.
"It seems evolution is not the only thing which atheists lie about."
How do you know it was posted by am atheist?
Hi Fake Bill,
Give it up. Garvan can see IP addresses, so knows when people are faking things. Like when creationist and alleged Christian 'Stan The Man' tried to create a fake friend to back up his claims. Yes, Bill, dishonesty and disreputable behaviour isn't confined to atheists, any more than decency and altruism is.
That should bring the scientific establishment to it's knees! A few blokes in a yahoo chatroom all agree with each other that evolution is not science.
Garvin, is this the chatroom that awarded you the PhD, or did you get that from AOL?
Oh dear, Garvan, not that old saw again? It's just another variant on "were you there?" - which, btw, could be applied to the likes of Jesus's resurrection and Mohammed's ride on a horse with a woman's head.
But do, please, give us a link to this chatroom so we can see the glory of desperate Dan.
Not d, but Dr. Beak.
Is it my sticky keyboard, or my fingers palsied with rage?
Garvy? Evolution was formulated with a falsification condition.
Many others have been suggested.
You and your buddy didn't argue your opponents senseless, you shocked them mute with your stupidity and ignorance.
More evidence that Garvan is suffering among other things from a memory disorder. This has been explained to him before.
Evolution:
1. Is an observed fact.
2. Is also a number of theories.
3. Is Science.
4. Is also scientific.
5. Is naturalistic and purely mechanistic.
6. Is falsifiable.
7. Is testable.
8. Is predictive.
9. Has been observed, in the field and in the laboratory.
10. Has occurred in the past.
11. Is still occurring.
12. Will continue to occur in the future.
To cover Garvans perpetual bewilderment over this, evolution is scientific because it is falsifiable.
Unlike creationism, where no test, no procedure, no experiment, can be postulated to disprove the notion of special creation or a creator because it is a belief system based on faith.
Evolution being based entirely upon evidence and facts, makes statements derived from those facts which can be falsified. For example find a fossilized skeleton of Homo sapiens in an undisturbed stratigraphic sequence at the same level as a Tyrannosaur.
Evolutionary theory maintains that: Tyrannosaurs are extinct, and that they existed in the Cretaceous period and are never found in rocks younger than approximately 66.6 Million years old. Evolutionary theory also holds that Homo sapiens is a relatively recently evolved species (from a perspective ofgeological time). H sapiens is currently extant and remains of this species are never found in sediments older than approximately 4 Million year. Therefore, if a Homo sapiens fossil was to be found in undisturbed Cretaceous strata alongside T rex then we would have some serious rethinking to do.
So another total fail for creationists, which is not surprising since they can not be really classed as real people.
The fact that Garvan delusionally reports a 'victory' for creationists is totally irrelevant, but may be taken as evidence of the depths of dishonesty that these delusional idiots have sunk to.
Again not surprising, since the entire world view of creationists is based on a failure to comprehend reality to any meaningful level, lacking any understanding they simply make up lies to try and justify their pathetic delusions.
If the evolutionists posting here had any integrity they would admit that evolutionist is a world view. It is not science by any definition.
Also - to this person who is impersonating me with obscene postings...
I have asked Garvan to report your IP address to me and I shall be passing it on to the appropriate authorities.
HAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA Not a "science" you say..Thats funny..you guys really are in denial..But i feel safe because the people who matter(the qualified)fully accept it as the most valid scientfic explantion for our exsistence...at a rate of about 99.99 somthing in the usa..the most creationists 1st world nation i must add..
So you guys can thrash about as your religion slowly but surly dies...i mean 44% of brits dont even beleive in god and that number is only increasing...
"Also - to this person who is impersonating me with obscene postings...
I have asked Garvan to report your IP address to me and I shall be passing it on to the appropriate authorities."
How does that work then? Who are these authorities, and what will they do?
"If the evolutionists posting here had any integrity they would admit that evolutionist is a world view"
And if creationists had any integrity they wouldn't be here. Or, indeed, be creationists. It's impossible to be one and not be either deluded or one of the ones deluding others.
And you can report that to the 'proper authorities' if you like.
By the way, Bill:
↑↑↑ LOL!!!
'If the evolutionists posting here had any integrity they would admit that evolutionist is a world view. It is not science by any definition.'
Bill you have no idea what a definition actually means!
Example do you know what integrity is?
As for your paltry understanding of Science you have even less of an idea of what that actually is and even less of an idea of how it works.!
Yellowcat gave you a clue use it.
Although I do not agree that posting rather risqué if not sexually explicit comments is the best way to go here, and do find it in very bad taste.
That Bill is a moron is beyond dispute, but he is a moron because he has very low intelligence, that is not his fault per se.
He could improve his IQ by trying to understand what evolutionary theory is, but has chosen not to, maybe because he is a moron...kindda vicious circle really.
I notice also creationists tend to very thin skins...say boo! to them and they burst out in tears and go running for the skirts of some mummy authority to kiss their hurt better ...cowards.
They obviously have no trust in their own delusional fairy to sort out the ones that make them cry.
What is worse then a god with no godlike powers?...the idiots that believe in them probably!
Then they are totally at a loss as to why their made up gobbly gook is regarded as quaint and useless.
May the new year provide remedial education to some and happiness to all!
Billy
If the creationists posting here had any integrity (obviously being creationists they are all liars with no regard for or even concept of truth)they would admit that creationism is simply an ignorant superstition, devoid of reality and that for a person in the modern world believe such nonsense they are either totally ignorant and lacking in education or seriously mentally.
Once again for the hard of thinking.
Evolution is an observed fact.
Is also a number of theories to explain those observations.
Is Science.
I realise that some mentally ill/retarded people have some difficulty grasping this but is is not a problem for real people.
So Bill I don't hold it against you that you prefer to hold on to your worthless superstitions rather than face reality.
For a person such as you, lacking in both intelligence and emotional maturity it must be very hard to let go of such a comfort blanket.
But I do urge you to try, with a bit of effort on your part you can grow beyond the need for silly beliefs in your magic sky daddy.
Come on Bill(and Garvan), you can do it, just look in the mirror and say out loud "THERE IS NO GOD AND I HAVE NO SOUL"
"THERE IS NO HEAVEN OR HELL"
"DEATH IS FINAL AND THERE IS NO AFTERLIFE"
I suggest that you do that every morning when you wake up and every evening before bed.
You can repeat it to yourself if you start feeling that you want to pray.
You must remember that there is no god for you to pray to.
There in no heaven or heavenly father to care about you, the universe is totally indifferent about you, you are an insignificant nothing.
strangebrew said...
" Bill ...
As for your paltry understanding of Science you have even less of an idea of what that actually is and even less of an idea of how it works.!"
I heard something on the radio the other day that went something like this.
Some people observe the world and use their observations to form theories and make predictions.
For others believing is seeing, they are so fixed in their mindset that they are incapable of seeing things that do not fit with their beliefs.
I wonder what it would take to make creationists see reality?
>"If the evolutionists posting here had any integrity they would admit that evolutionist is a world view. It is not science by any definition."
If you had any integrity you would stop lying. But the evidence points towards your total lack of integrity just as it points towards evolution.
>"I have given into my homosexual urges"
Bill has previously claimed that anything he says is as likely to be true as anything else is likely to be true (regardless of the amount of evidence). Therefore this is as likely to be true as anything else he says (but only using pathetic creationist-logic).
So Bill continues to show is inability to grasp reality, though I also have doubts about the reality of Bill.
I think I am fully justified in saying that creationists can not be considered to be human.
Humans are the product of millions of years of evolution,
Creationists claim that they were produce by special creation by a supernatural entity some 6000 years ago, this is a considerable time after the evolution of Homo sapiens. So if you take what they say as containing an element of truth(hahaha) it is easy to see that creationists can not be classed as real people but rather some sort of inept copy. Not being human of course means that they do not qualify for human rights.
So by their own admission (of their status as non human) it should be perfectly acceptable for me to perform any experiments I wish to on creationists. Actually since all life is the product of many millions of years of evolution I don't think that their beliefs would even qualify them to fall under the animal rights act.
So it is best to consider them to be sub human and sub animal, not worthy of the same level of respect as a laboratory rat or even the respect due to a Drosophila melanogaster.
"So it is best to consider them to be sub human and sub animal, "
What nonsense you write. No better than the ridiculous ramblings of Bill and Garvan really.
Ridiculous ramblings for everyone!!!I think I'm going to talk about why Dane Cook should be castrated. Dane cook is a terrible comedian;hes just not a funny guy. He jumps around on stage and throws his hands in every direction like a retarded monkey(thats what makes the people laugh). He wears product in his hair to make himself look like he just got out of bed 24/hours a day.He talks about his catolisim way too much. His fans make me hate them more for their girlish teenage adoration of him(he is more attractive then real talented comedians like Louis C.K or Jimmy Carr). So I think creationists and not-stupid people can both agree that Dane Cook should have his gentitals removed and then be tortured to death in the most humiliating and grousome manner possible; also we should have his head placed on a pike and it should be displayed next to George Carlins gravesite.
I think Yellowcat's indulging in reductio ad absurdum, Anonymous. Though that may not be the right term, when you're starting with creationism: reductio EX absurdum might be better - if you can get any lower, that is.
While the idea that a hypothesis can only be tested by experimental means is farsical (for one, it would be the deathknell of the study of mathematics as we know it), I must ask then if you are so igorant of Experimental Evolution? You must be familliar with it, for if not, how could you make such a broad statement about the nature of Evolution?
I would suppose the work of Lenski has an obvious rebuttal then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
Or Theodore Garland, perhaps? As much as I would like to see a string of peer-reviewed rejections to support your persecution complex; a simple refutation of the works of Lenski and Garland would be a good start.
However, if you were not aware of their work - perhaps you might wish to familisarise yourself with them, before making such grand statements about the nature of Evolution, as a study, and as a scientific endeavour.
"Evolution is an observed fact"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... I have read many ridiculous things posted by evolutionists over the years, but this really does take the biscuit!!!
Citation needed! So who observed it? When? And where has this been reported?
This is all taken from a website Bill.
"Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor. "
"The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples."
"What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution. "
Heres the link:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
There are some direct links to specific examples of evolution being observed in experiments at the homepage and with a quick google search you can find other experiments where it has been observed.
You call us ridiculous..but if thats true...why do the people who count and have actual knowlage in the area(biologists) have no dispute about it as an accepted fact.
So who is ridiculous here Bill?
"HAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... I have read many ridiculous things posted by evolutionists over the years, but this really does take the biscuit!!!"
Do you choose to be ignorant of how science works, or did you skip a lot of school?
The best thing about creationists is that they pretty much make creationism look stupid all by themselves. It takes very little prompting from others to prod them in the right direction.
As I said for the likes of Bill believing is seeing, that is for him his superstitious beliefs are so overpowering that he no longer has the ability to see or comprehend any thing that contradicts what he has been told that it is acceptable for him to think. Some of it is clearly down to his obvious lack of mental ability meaning that he is not adequately mentally developed to a level where he can comprehend very much.
Another significant and rather insidious factor is that his infection is with a variety of religiosity meme that infects the stupid and acts to keep them so.
It produces a vastly exaggerated feeling of self worth and self importance, even in an obviously intellectually bankrupt entity such as Bill.
I expect that he falsely considers his trivial and worthless life to have some meaning.
Any way because of his hyper exaggerated opinion of his own abilities (Dunning, Kruger effect) when he comes across something that he lacks the ability to comprehend (in bills case that must amount to pretty much everything) he assumes that he is such a towering intellect (rather than barely functioning half wit that he really is)
and thinks that because he can not understand it there must be something wrong with the information.
In reality of course it is his mind that and the religiosity meme infecting it that are at fault.
His squalid and corrupting beliefs actually allow him to think that is acceptable to not try to understand the world and he probably believes that his ludicrous 'faith' is in some way meaningful.
It is not and until Bill is able to rid himself of his faith he will continue to be a thoroughly worthless individual living an empty life devoid of real meaning.
I am sure though that deep down he does realise that there is no god and that he has no soul, it is just that he is at the moment too much of a coward to face that reality.
One again Bill I really do have your best interests in mind. You know deep down that I am right and that you really should follow my advice.
Did Garven die?
Did Garven die?
You have to remember that Garvan is a probably a personality that has been constructed by a disturbed mind and does tend to vanish for periods of time. Garvan may not be the primary ego associated with the body it inhabits, some of the others may approach a passable approximation of rationality.
More lying from Bill. What an extraordinary liar this "person" is.
And he hasn't denied that he is a Garv personality.
Sad to say, just because someone posts creationist nonsense doesn't mean that they're Garvan. Those poor, deluded creationists are everywhere.
Why would people assume I am Garvan?? Just because I am a young earth creationist? Well, I've got news for you buddy, there are over 500 million of us and counting...
"Well, I've got news for you buddy, there are over 500 million of us and counting..."
500 million? Where do you get that figure from?
Also getting forgotten in all the excitement:
Bill thinks the Bible says animals don't go to Heaven.
Garvan thinks the Bible says animals do go to Heaven.
Both believe the Bible is the literally true unambiguous Word of God. To doubt the Word of God means an eternity in Hell-Fire.
One of Bill or Garvan must be wrong, and therefore bound for eternal Hell-Fire.
So Bill. So Garvan
WHICH ONE OF YOU IS THE HELL-BOUND SINNER?
Discuss.
So bill, I showed you evidence that evolution has been observed. Now you can either refute the evidence or accept that using the 'ol "evolution can not be observed therefore it is not science" argument is not valid when arguing against evolution.
As I said for the likes of Garvan/Bill believing is seeing, believe first and then refuse to comprehend any thing that does not match with their superstitions.
This is reinforced by the YEC meme that infects their minds, it falsely elevates their self worth making them believe that they are 'chosen'.
It also makes them suspicious of learning and education, deep down they must know that were they to actually learn about reality then their whole pathetic warped world view would crumble away as the insubstantial worthless dross that it is.
The only excuses for believing young earth cretinism is ignorance, stupidity or mental illness.
I think it is safe to say that in Garvan/Bill we have all of those.
Of course since we all know that we evolved over many millions of years the YEC stance is actually a denial of their own humanity.
Bill said
"there are over 500 million of us"
More lies from bill the innumerate idiot. You do not honestly (OK Bill I do realise honesty is not a concept you understand) think that with your obvious deficiency in the veracity department that anyone is going to take your word for anything?
How did you arrive at this number ?
Did you just think of it or perhaps another equally delusional idiot told it to you and you are too stupid and ignorant to think of questioning it?
Actually, Bill's number might be in the right area.It rather depends on whether enough Muslims know enough about their religion, and evolution, to have a view on it and what fraction of them take the creationist interpretation seriously.
So Bill's veracity is being weighed on the scales of an unholy alliance. Happy New Delusional Year.
I wonder what percentage of Bill's 500 million young earth creationists are voluntarily ignorant, as opposed to being ignorant through circumstances beyond their control?
Bill is obviously in the former camp, since he lives in a literate, educated society, yet still chooses to reject reality in favour of his delusions.
I'd still like him to explain his 500 million figure, though. And I bet it does include Muslims.
Where do you stand on geocentrism, Bill? The Bible says it's a fact. What do you think?
Does the sun go around the earth?
>"Bill is obviously in the former camp"
Yes, Bill's camp. He said so in a previous post.
Methinks Stan the Eunuch has been cloned.
Can you just imagine 500 million of 'em...bit like a plague of ignorance.
Still easy to deal with...put them in a round room and tell them the door is in the corner.
Wishful thinking never got so wishful!
500 million morons that cannot tie their shoelaces without spiritual guidance.
500 thousand world wide would be a push.
If bill is counting Muslims...not out of the question...beggars the question which god is top doggy?
So maybe a little jealousy here...Allah can do it...why not Yahweh?
Creation...the rumble in the cosmos...two gods goes in....how many come out?
And which one would bill drool after?
He is backing the loser at the moment
At liberal estimates including old earth and other delusions...maybe less then 35 million are counted in USA.
But most are poor badly educated immigrants from the third world.
And the rest are home schooled hicks from the boon-docks!
The percentage of believers in cretinism decreases as the level of education increases
500 million..in your sweat soaked dreams bill...hard luck..caught out lying for jeebus again!
Just to show how innumerate idiot bill/stan is, there are by a generous estimate about a couple of billion christians and bill is claiming that a quarter of them are uneducated morons like him.
I find that very implausible.
In my experience only a very small number of christians are fundy nut jobs like bill who lack any education.
I wonder does bill manage to hold down a paying job?
The 500 million does NOT include muslims as they believe Allah created things, not the God of the Bible. This figures is made up of approximately 155 million Americans (source FOX news poll, August 1999), 147 million in Africa (source Pew Forum, 2006). This comes to 302 million.
Considering that evangelical Christianity (I mean the proper, Bible-based version, not the pope's version) is growing rapidly in Europe and Asia, I would break down the remaining 198 million as follows:
China 10 million
India 8 million
Philippinnes 20 million
Russia 15 million
Australia / New Zealand 1 million
Malaysia and Singapore 1 million
TOTAL ASIA and AUSTRALIA = 55 million
There would easily be a further 57 million in Europe, taking into account UK, Ireland, Germany, Holland and Scandanavia.
So my 500 million figure is actually quite a conservative estimate. The true figure might well be closer to 700 million.
What is wrong with you people that you cannot have a civilised conversation without resorting to name-calling and the like?
And how many of those people believe young-earth creationism on scientific grounds?
In other words, how many have looked at scientific reality, and chosen to reject it in favour of their nonsense?
There is a direct correlation between rejection of young earth creationism on scientific grounds, and standards of education. And, of course, in countries where educational standards are slipping (such as the US) you get an increase in YEC beliefs. In other words, YEC beliefs are a product of ignorance.
Or perhaps there is scientific evidence in favour of young earth creationism, and Bill has just been hiding it from us.
(Bearing in mind that evidence against evolution supports Islam or Catholocism, as much as it supports Bill's own bigoted beliefs.)
So let's hear it, Bill. scientific evidence in favour of young earth creationism.
And don't forget the geocentrism, Bill.
And that fact that either you or Garvan is a Hell-Bound sinner because of your beliefs about animal souls.
HEY BILL REFUTE OR ACCEPT..YOU ANSWERED THEM NOW ANSWER ME..
"Still easy to deal with...put them in a round room and tell them the door is in the corner."
If the book they worship told them there was a corner, they'd swear blind it was there. If you asked them to walk over to it and point it out to them, they'd hand-wave the request away, saying that the person asking wasn't worthy.
>"HEY BILL REFUTE OR ACCEPT..YOU ANSWERED THEM NOW ANSWER ME.."
How can he? He's wrong, he's a liar who keeps on lying. You've beaten him so he crawls away like all creationists do in the face of reality.
I know this Bob but I want to here him say it. I want him to know that he can never use that argument again. OR HE CAN REFUTE it with valid evidence. COME ON BILL if you dont take this you forsake your right that you owe to yourself...the right of intellectual honesty.All you have to do is refute or accept.(if you refute you must come up with objective evidence)
Bill your figures give no evidence that all of these people are as poorly educated and wilfully ignorant as yourself.
I realise that your your aim is to spread ignorance and lies to try and keep people stupid but be aware you are talking to educated people who will not accept your lies at face value.
BILL said"The 500 million does NOT include muslims as they believe Allah created things, not the God of the Bible."
I see that your theology is rather shaky, Islam is an Abrahamic faith, all be it a more slightly recently evolved one than Christianity or Judaism. Since Islam includes Jesus as a prophet it seems reasonable that they all worship the same god.
As do Catholics for that matter.
Unless you believe that each religious sect has it's own little god?
So bill it seems that for someone who claims to know about religion you are as ignorant on that subject as every other.
Are you in England?
Do you actually manage to hold down a paying job or are you reliant on social social security?
Leave Bill alone and kindly stop harassing him. He has provided robust evidence to back up his argument, so I will not have him called a liar on this here blog. Thank you.
AGRF, I have refuted your argument and continue to do so. Talk Origins is not impartial, it is an evolutionist website that is run with a creationist agenda.
Evolution clearly states that man evolved from apes, but no one has ever seen this happen and, what is more, there are still apes around today. So that is the fatal flaw in your argument. As Garvan would say, "Nuff said".
Also Yellowcat you are wrong the muslim god Allah is not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is called YHWH.
I have said before that I live in Edinburgh and I do not collect social security. I work for a pentecostal church as a youth pastor.
I meant to say "anti-creationist agenda", of course.
Actually Bill we did not evolve from apes we evolved from a primate that is long since extinct.Homo Sapiens are classified as apes and there are many other kinds of apes. Also we can observe the evidence that shows we evolved from this ancient primate. By you logic forensic science it not a science. There are a lot of murder cases where no one was about to witness the murder. SO since no one was there to see the murder they call in foresnsic scientists to examine what the evidence suggests to a certin degree of certitude. So by you logic we should let all criminals who were apprehended by foresnsic science because no one was actually there to see the murder. So your argument is boot. Now tell me why this is wrong. If you think so. One more thing its funny that you just a youth pastor think that you know more then the ENTIRE life science community many of which made up of genuises who are experts in their fields. You honestly have no IDEA what you are talking about.THis time i want a reply to the whole thing.
"Evolution clearly states that man evolved from apes, but no one has ever seen this happen and, what is more, there are still apes around today. So that is the fatal flaw in your argument. "
Billy you are clearly mentally deficient if you consider that you have a good argument.
The only flaw is is in your reasoning ability. As has been shown before your ability is not really up to much. However as I pointed out but you failed to comprehend (obviously due to your significant level of mental retardation) you are suffering from the Dunning–Kruger effect, to put it simply your level of mental incompetence is such that denies you the metacognitive ability to recognize recognize the extremity of your own mental inadequacy.
This also causes you to tend to vastly overestimate your own level of ability while at the same time
failing to recognize genuine skill in others.
There may be some hope for you, if you recognize and acknowledge your own lack of ability, it may be that you can be trained to substantially improve your currently woefully inadequate reasoning ability.
I suspect though that you may have suffered some brain damage either from alcohol or drug abuse which would make any improvement on your part rather difficult. Of course I do recognise that in extreme cases you may be unaware of your brain damage and missing knowledge and simply fill it in by confabulation.
I regret to say that though I will be visiting the UK next month I will be unable to come to Edinburgh to give you counselling for your problems.
Garvan said...
" Leave Bill alone and kindly stop harassing him. He has provided robust evidence to back up his argument, so I will not have him called a liar on this here blog. Thank you."
No he has not provided robust evidence, only incoherent bluster.
He is a liar, though I do recognise that he may actually be too mentally incompetent to recognise the truth.
Of course you too suffer from the same mental failings.
Bill said...
" Also Yellowcat you are wrong the muslim god Allah is not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is called YHWH. "
Another theological failure for you I an afraid bill. As I pointed out they are all variations on Abrahamic faith. You clearly have no understanding theology.
Was working with children a bit of a dream job, Bill? I'm sur you give them everything they want ... and more.
It does seem suspicious that a person such as Bill would be allowed to have contact with children.
I wonder if this 'pentacostal' sect complies with the legal requirement for CRB Checks.
So bill a few questions for you.
Which particular branch of this 'pentacostal' sect are you a member of?
What age of 'youth' do you work with?
Did you have a CRB Check before taking your position?
Have you ever abused alcohol or other drugs?
Have you ever sustained a serious head injury?
Are you married?
Have you always been a member of the 'pentacostal' sect?
How old are you?
What is your nationality?
Do you wear glasses?
What educational qualifications do you have?
Just trying to get a more rounded picture of you.
Oh sorry Bill I missed some questions:
Are you on any long term medication?
What sign of the zodiac are you?
Have you ever experienced epileptic seizures?
What is your shoe size?
Do you have any pets?
Have you ever killed an animal?
Post a Comment