Telling lies for God

First topic message reminder :

Creationism and ID, how much of this idiocy is simple delusion, and how much is outright mendacity? The more I have read the ravings of creationists the more I am inclined to doubt that they sincerely believe everything they are claiming. I mean that some of it is so obviously and ludicrously false, and requires denial of so many facts and so much evidence that I suspect they are deliberately lying. Further, I suspect they genuinely believe that a lie to help proselytise their chosen deity is regarded as a "good lie", and therefore not really a lie at all, but just a pragmatic approach to "fighting the good fight".

A little blunt sometimes, but this punchy article raises some interesting points about theistic debates, and the ludicrous old chestnut that "all beliefs ought to be respected". I have always maintained that what should be respected is the right to believe, not the belief itself, which in any intelligent rational society must surely be judged on the merits of its claims and evidence. Here's a taster, and a link....

"The tactics used by the creationists are identical to those used by the anti-vaccination liars, which is to stand up, tell a monstrous lie which requires a detailed technical response to show the truth, and then sit down leaving the question hanging and no time for an adequate reply. There is no difference in quality between "There are no intermediary fossils" or "There is no way that an eye can evolve" and "Vaccines are made from aborted foetuses" or "Thimerosal in vaccines causes autism". The lie is there, the spectators have heard it, and the liars rely on the fact that scientists take too long to explain the truth and are too polite to shout "That's bullshit!"

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/creationdebate5.htm

How many egregiously dishonest acts, and duplicities have theists and established religions justified in this fashion throughout human history I wonder? After all, in the pursuit of truth a lie is about as useful as a snooze button on a smoke alarm.

Exactly

Stu,
I have just read that the brain has 100 trillion connections, can any scientist explain how this could have evolved and this is only one of thousands of similar examples.

I have also recently read that the scientists have found the smallest living things, one single celled and the other double celled.

If evolution was a fact then the above would have died out long ago [I do not mean evolution as Darwin's theory, I mean as the source of life]

So we are left with how did life come about? and it was certainly not by chance.

Our brain Polyglide is far more complex than any computer, it would have been in the same newspaper article, and if we could turn our brains into a computer we would live longer also.

polyglide wrote:Stu,
    I have just read that the brain has 100 trillion connections, can any scientist explain how this could have evolved and this is only one of thousands of similar examples.

    I have also recently read that the scientists have found the smallest living things, one single celled and the other double celled.

    If evolution was a fact then the above would have died out long ago [I do not mean evolution as Darwin's theory, I mean as the source of life]

    So we are left with how did life come about? and it was certainly not by chance.

Examples of what? One assumes examples of your woeful inability to understand the basics of evolution. You've been told that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, we could have made a donkey understand this by know so must assume you're being deliberately dishonest again by conflating evolution with abiogenesis.

Evolution is a fact. No amount of proposterous claims by you will alter that. Unless you can explain why 150 years of scientific scrutiny has only added to the evidence that supports it whereas not once has a single piece of evidence ever been scientifically validated to falsify it?

You've been asked this enough times to make your reticence speak for itself. Yet you continue to make a fool of yourself by claiming what is demonstrably untrue? Why is the million dollar question?

I see you finish with the lie that we have only two choices, either bronze age superstitions or chance. Again why you insist on repeating this idiotic lie and making yourself appear foolish and dishonest only you can know. Rest assured I will not tire of pointing it out.

Answered your email Polyglide.

polyglide wrote:Stu,
    I have just read that the brain has 100 trillion connections, can any scientist explain how this could have evolved

https://www.google.co.uk/search?site=&source=hp&ei=GnhlVfzSLMmmsAGb2oHoDw&q=chronology+of+human+brain+evolution&oq=chronology+of+human+brain+evolution&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.12..0i22i30.3474.20248.0.21695.38.37.1.7.7.0.472.9551.0j4j23j7j2.36.0....0...1c.1j4.64.mobile-gws-hp..7.31.6417.3.HzcH5mnzWic

Knock yourself out.

Stu,
Just log on to, against the evolution of the brain, and you will find many scientists, as qualified as those quoted By Dr. Sheldon,
who by null hypothesis have discredited the whole scenario.

Stu,
Pleased to see you happy, just log on to what I have said and you will find step by step examples of why the brain could not have come about in stage

I could give you step by step examples of anything you would like to mention the creation of choose how outlandish it may be, that does not make it right.

polyglide wrote:Stu,
    Just log on to, against the evolution of the brain, and you will find many scientists, as qualified as those quoted  By Dr. Sheldon,
who by null hypothesis have discredited the whole scenario.

Name one. Then link their research, then link the peer reviewed publication that broke this earth shattering news, then name the Nobel prize winners who falsified evolution, then explain why the entire world is unaware of all this. etc etc etc., why on earth do you keep repeating this imbecilic lie?

polyglide wrote:Stu,
    Pleased to see you happy, just log on to what I have said and you will find step by step examples of why the brain could not have come about in stage

You can log onto sites that show mermaids exist, this does not represent proper scientific evidence any more than the whackadoo nutjobs who favour creationist hokum over real scientific facts, it's astonishing that you think sheer repetition will make this garbage more credible, it won't and stu may be happy but I suspect his smiley faces are to show that he's laughing at your idiotic claim.

Stu,
If you fall for the stupid responses from Dr. Sheldon I feel sorry for you.

He obviously believes in Mermaids, because he says there are grounds that show they exist, the mind boggles at such sheer stupidity, however, nearly all his replies are of a similar nature.

I just wish he would actually think before making an idiot of himself.

Polyglide he does not believe in mermaids at all,he is showing that you can log on to sites to say that they do!!

polyglide wrote:Stu,
    If you fall for the stupid responses from Dr. Sheldon I feel sorry for you.

    He obviously believes in Mermaids, because he says there are grounds that show they exist, the mind boggles at such sheer stupidity, however, nearly all his replies are of a similar nature.

    I just wish he would actually think before making an idiot of himself.

For once I agree, the mind certainly boggles at such stupidity, your inability to read and understand even the most basic sentence is indeed mind boggling. Or is your claim just more trolling? I doubt we'll get an answer, as we've all read your posts often enough to know you've no interest in honest discussion, but yet again I'm happy for anyone to read what I have written and what you have written and make up their own minds about who is redefining the word stupid. So I'll just reiterate that if your criteria of citing unevidenced claims on the internet as valid evidence then it is YOU,  not I, who is claiming mermaids exist, but it seems you are too dimwitted to see it even when someone takes the time to politely explain it to you. Preferring instead to hurl childish insults like the nasty spiteful gullible moron your posts indicate you undoubtedly are.

stuart torr wrote:Polyglide he does not believe in mermaids at all,he is showing that you can log on to sites to say that they do!!

I'm afraid he's either too stupid to understand even the most basic points, or is simply trolling again.  Maybe even both. Again though we see the extent of the religious apologists argument, petty childish ad hominem rather than address my point honestly, so I suspect he knows at some level that he made himself look a fool again with his repeated claims that "the evidence is on the internet."

I did try to point this out Sheldon did I not?

polyglide wrote: He obviously believes in Mermaids, because he says there are grounds that show they exist, the mind boggles at such sheer stupidity, however, nearly all his replies are of a similar nature. I just wish he would actually think before making an idiot of himself.

Well since you have yet again shown your propensity for bear faced lies lets take a look at what I actually said.

You can log onto sites that show mermaids exist, this does not represent proper scientific evidence any more than the whackadoo nutjobs who favour creationist hokum over real scientific facts, it's astonishing that you think sheer repetition will make this garbage more credible,

I think as far as not thinking before making an idiot of yourself goes, no one could seriously hope to match your astonishing tenacity for sheer repetition of lies and stupidity. I wonder how others reading this latest astonishing lie of yours will view your religious beliefs that allow you to think it is ok to lie with impunity, rather than address the point I was making about your hubris over claims made on the internet that are not supported by scientific evidence.

Stu,
Dr, Sheldon, you can go onto sites that show mermaids exist, you cannot be any clearer than that, so our friend believes in God, from a previous post heading and he believes in mermaids, the mind boggles when he then denies both.

polyglide wrote:Stu,
    Dr, Sheldon, you can go onto sites that show mermaids exist, you cannot be any clearer than that, so our friend believes in God, from a previous post heading and he believes in mermaids, the mind boggles when  he then denies both.

   

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:  You can log onto sites that show mermaids exist, this does not represent proper scientific evidence   any more than the whackadoo nutjobs who favour creationist hokum over real scientific facts, it's astonishing that you think sheer repetition will make this garbage more credible,

No indeed you can't be any clearer than I was. So just how thick you'd have to be to think ignoring half the sentence will go unnoticed is hard to contemplate. Though obviously you've achieved this level of stupidity in two consecutive posts.

polyglide wrote:Stu,
    Just log on to, against the evolution of the brain, and you will find many scientists, as qualified as those quoted  By Dr. Sheldon,
who by null hypothesis have discredited the whole scenario.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote: Name one. Then link their research, then link the peer reviewed publication that broke this earth shattering news, then name the Nobel prize winners who falsified evolution, then explain why the entire world is unaware of all this. etc etc etc., why on earth do you keep repeating this imbecilic lie?

Any answer to this? I'm guessing not giving your hilariously stupid attempts at deflection and obfuscation.

Sheldon I give him evidence etc,yet he keeps posting to myself regarding yourself does he not? WHY? there are certain days when you just do not need it are there not.

Dr Sheldon,
Biophysisist: Scientiist Gabi Avital.

Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

Both as qualified as all those you quote, read and understand or get someone to explain the relevance of what they say.

I do not want to upset Stu, so please for once act like you are intelligent, even if it is disputable.

polyglide wrote:Dr Sheldon, Biophysisist: Scientiist Gabi Avital. Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

I see no peer reviewed research linked, and are you seriously claiming these two scientists have falsified evolution, achieved world fame and the Nobel prize and no one but you noticed? You really are utterly clueless if you think this is how science ratifies such evidence. And yet again you seriously think I'm going to do your research for you, why would I? It's your claim, if these two had falsified the evolution of the human brain it'd be world news, how many times. So evidence it yourself or be prepared for your claim to be laughed at, again.

Polyglide wrote:I do not want to upset Stu, so please for once act like you are intelligent, even if it is disputable.

Why would your inability to evidence your palpably false claim that scientists had disproved evolution upset stu? Do leave the childish name calling alone, it makes you look even more ridiculous, and petty and childish to boot.

Any chance you'll apologise for your lie misrepresenting my example of people claiming mermaids exist on the internet, as me believing they exist?

Nah what am I saying, your superior morals don't prohibit making up lies about me so why should they prompt any integrity or decency by way of an apology. It doesn't really matter as your paraphrasing of my sentence by using just the first half was quite funny, and only succeeded in making you look utterly ridiculous again. Do you think people won't notice you're lying when they read my sentence and see you'd left half of it out?

polyglide wrote: Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

Did a quick Google on these two as you as usual gave nothing whatever to back up your claim, and the first I got was this:

Henry Madison Morris (October 6, 1918 – February 25, 2006) was an American young earth creationist, Christian apologist, and engineer. He was one of the founders of the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research. He is considered by many to be "the father of modern creation science. He wrote numerous creationist and devotional books, and made regular television and radio appearances.[not verified in body]
As Morris believed in the inerrancy of the Bible, he opposed the billions-of-years time scales of evolution, the age of the Earth, and the age of the Universe that he saw as being contrary to it. Morris's influential approach, while adopted widely by the modern creationist movement, continues to be rejected by the scientific community,

Morris grew up in Texas in the 1920s and 1930s. He graduated from Rice University with a bachelor's degree in civil engineering in 1939.

He's not  even a biologist. I think I may have to call in sick tomorrow I just laughed so much. I think you just gave your own claim the equivalent of a colonoscopy. You utter clown....not content with claiming something that is demonstrably false with two relatively unknowns, your expert has no qualifications in biology at all.

Your other expert has just been sacked for his bizarre and unscientific views. You really don't disappoint I'll give you that, not only can't you cite any scientists who've properly falsified evolution, but you haven't linked the two you name to any credible research, one of them has no qualifications whatsoever in biology and got his PhD in civil engineering, pmlmao etc etc. the other has just been sacked as head of science for denying global warming is linked to carbon emissions. Please please keep these coming I haven't laughed like this since I was a baby in my pram......

Hilarious Sheldon, I am laughing also but must stop soon as it is making me cough.

stuart torr wrote:Hilarious Sheldon, I am laughing also but must stop soon as it is making me cough.

Well be careful stu. It was funny though.

Just to recap then:

by polyglide on Fri May 29, 2015 3:12 pm
Stu, Just log on to, against the evolution of the brain, and you will find many scientists, as qualified as those quoted By Dr. Sheldon, who by null hypothesis have discredited the whole scenario.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Fri May 29, 2015 7:39 pm
Name one. Then link their research, then link the peer reviewed publication that broke this earth shattering news, then name the Nobel prize winners who falsified evolution, then explain why the entire world is unaware of all this.

by polyglide Today at 4:17 pm
Dr Sheldon, Biophysisist: Scientiist Gabi Avital.
Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

Gabi Avital was recently sacked from his prestiges post and roundly villified by the scientific establishment for claiming that global warming was nothing to do with carbon emissions, that computers were a crutch for children, and that the earth was not billions of years old but just thousands.

Bad enough but this was even better:

Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. gained his PhD in civil engineering, he is a young earth creationist who denies evolution, yet has no qualifications whatsoever in either biology or evolution.

On top of which all Poly did was name two creationists, he cited no research, showed no peer reviewed evidence, no Nobel prize awards, in short not one single piece of scientifically validated evidence for his ludicrous claim.

It was funny though even by his standards.

Well Sheldon, will that engineer be able to cure my cancer then mate? must check on that one eh.

Stu,
There was a great fire and a four children and two adults were saved by a young man, he was not in any way a qualified fireman, just an intelligent person capable of considering the situation and came up with the correct solution.

polyglide wrote:Stu,
    There was a great fire and a four children and two adults were saved by a young man, he was not in any way a qualified fireman, just an intelligent person capable of considering the situation and came up with the correct solution.

Are you genuinely saying moving live people away from the heat and smoke of a fire without training  comparable  to understanding the science of evolution better than the entire scientific world without any training or education on the topic??

That's the dumbest thing you've said. Seriously why on earth am I bothering beyond the laughs here I don't know. If you can't see how stupid that post is then no wonder you think you can deny scientific facts based on mountains of validated evidence over 150 years scientific scrutiny when all you have is subjective faith and religious belief.

The mind boggles....

polyglide wrote:Stu,
    There was a great fire and a four children and two adults were saved by a young man, he was not in any way a qualified fireman, just an intelligent person capable of considering the situation and came up with the correct solution.

Do I really need to quote the post where you said that those scientists were as qualified to comment on evolution as the ones I'd quoted?

Why do you think science insists that all claims, research, methods, and conclusions are peer reviewed by the foremost experts in that field if they could simply have someone with no qualifications at all in the field give their opinion based on their religious beliefs? Again I'm finding it difficult to believe you're being serious.

polyglide wrote:Stu,
    There was a great fire and a four children and two adults were saved by a young man, he was not in any way a qualified fireman, just an intelligent person capable of considering the situation and came up with the correct solution.

I'm reminded now that you recently claimed to have kept abreast of all the latest scientific knowledge and methods. Yet here you insist that a claim denying the scientific fact of evolution made by someone without any qualifications in the field, and whose claims have never been peer reviewed, and have been rejected by the scientific community as pseudo science, is as valid as the opinions of every major scientific body on the planet that of course accept Darwinian evolution as factually evidenced.

Dr, Sheldon,
As usual you never grasp the point.

The young man had never had a anything peer reviewed nor had a Nobel Prize, he just had common sense which is sadly lacking in your posts., had he waited to have a peer review 6 people would have died.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, As usual you never grasp the point. The young man had never had a anything peer reviewed nor had a Nobel Prize, he just had common sense which is sadly lacking in your posts., had he waited to have a peer review 6 people would have died.

On the contrary I grasp  the point perfectly, it's you who doesn't grasp the point no matter how much is explained it seems. So I'll try once again, the point is that anyone would quite obviously now to move people away from a fire without necessarily being trained as a fire-fighter. After all in your story the imaginary man doesn't fight any fires does he ffs.

Now imagine the training of a fire fighter compared to the level of education and training, and (with all due respect to fire fighters) the intellectual capacity required of a scientist at the top of his or her field. Which is precisely why firemen don't need a university degree, or go on to doctorates, or get noble prizes, jesus wept why does this need explaining at all, let alone repeatedly?

As  always I'm more than happy for others to read all the posts, and decide for themselves whose posts indicate common sense, and whose are so absurdly stupid that they genuinely think a civil engineer is qualified to refute the best scientific minds in a completely different field without any training or qualifications in that field, based on their own subjective superstitious religious beliefs which the entire scientific world has rejected as hokum. Or who think that an analogous comparison for such a stupid claim is someone rescuing people from a fire without being trained as a fire fighter.

I know Sheldon,it is a wonder we do not get headaches with all this,

stuart torr wrote:I know Sheldon,it is a wonder we do not get headaches with all this,

That apparently is because we lack common sense.

I'm not too worried as according to Polyglide so did Shirina, Tosh, Oftenwrong, Snowyflake, Norm, to name a few, indeed anyone who rejects his religious beliefs it seems.

I have done quite well over the other site,even managed to get one thread back on subject,against a lot of theists too,spin has kept out of my way,just sst giving some jip now and again as per.

Another one may be coming over Sheldon,a nice lady,fingers crossed.

DR, Shedlon,
Then let people consider the following facts:-

You are always on about spelling, yet you with all the aids to correct yours, you cannot tell the difference between can and can't etc.

You continually remark about beinmg personal and yet all your posts include same.

You say you do not believe in God yet debate his existance as a fact.

You think an omnipotent being cannot agree to an arrangement with another being and have a very limited understanding of omnipotence when applied to God.

You think unless a matter has been subject to peer review it is of no account, [Desperate Dan and the Beano spring to mind,

You have no understanding beween a lie and a difference of opinion.

You think Darwin's theory answers everything when in fact all it is is a simple explanation of what can happen when unnatural circumstances arise.

You think science has only done good, when in fact it has caused far more problems for mankind than it has solve as the present state of the world clearly indicates.

I could go on and then I realised it is not omnipotence in your case I should consider but impotence

You are going on regarding Sheldons spelling again,yet if you look at the 3rd 4th and next to last lines,you will see your spelling mistakes? so Polyglide leaving those aside for the time being,to insinuate that Sheldon is impotent is totally out of order.

polyglide wrote: you cannot tell the difference between can and can't etc.

Well I'm happy for everyone to read my posts and see if I can't understand the difference.

Polyglide wrote:You continually remark about beinmg personal and yet all your posts include same.

I point out your childish use of ad hominem, when you use it, if it is continual then you might want to consider what that indicates. Again I'm happy for everyone to read the exchanges and decide for themselves which of us resorts relentlessly to ad hominem. I'd remind you that is was you, and not me, that was warned several times, and banned for the same.

Polyglide wrote:You say you do not believe in God yet debate his existance as a fact.

Again it's existence, and I have no idea what the rest of that sentence means or what it is claiming, but my disbelief in the existence of deities is a matter of record.

Polyglide wrote: You think an omnipotent being cannot agree to an arrangement with another being

No I don't, I think no omnipotent being exists, and I have said so. Why you must make up such absurd lies I really don't know. 

Polyglide wrote:and have a very limited understanding of omnipotence when applied to God.

So you keep repeating in every posts, in a most petulant manner, but anyone who reads this exchange can see you're lying shamelessly, and I have posted and reposted the dictionary definition of the word, and applied it precisely in the context that the OED and Merriam Webster's apply it to a deity.

Polyglide wrote:You think unless a matter has been subject to peer review it is of no account,

   

No I don't another clumsy and stupid lie.         

Polyglide wrote:[Desperate Dan and the Beano spring to mind,  

And again you resort to ad hominem with no salient connection to the thread topic, or any points made.

Polyglide wrote:You have no understanding beween a lie and a difference of opinion.

 

Yes I do, though it's clear you think your repeating dishonest misrepresentations regarding what I've posted, as you've done here several times again, does not represent lies. I'm happy for anyone to read this and decide for themselves.                                              

Polyglide wrote:You think Darwin's theory answers everything

     

Just to prove the point and right on cue you post another bare faced lie, and one you've used before and I categorically repudiated.            

Polyglide wrote:when in fact all it is is a simple explanation of what can happen when unnatural circumstances arise.

Rubbish.

Polyglide wrote:You think science has only done good,

Another lie, sigh. Learn to read, I said science is not responsible for it's misuse, and I pointed to the innumerable good things it has achieved. You have only offered your biased bare claim to derogate it, and lies in response to my examples.

Polyglide wrote:when in fact it has caused far more problems for mankind than it has solve as the present state of the world clearly indicates.

List ten things that science has caused that you consider are not just human's misuse of scientific knowledge. So far you've offered not a single one, quelle surprise.

Polyglide wrote:I could go on and then I realised it is not omnipotence in your case I should consider but impotence

 
Well there you go, as good an example of pure ad hominem as I could need. Painting you as a thoroughly nasty piece of work who simply can't handle reasoned debate.