Insults and bannishments is the only way many here can "deal with" those who espouse the Biblical rendition of our ancient origins, "can't beat 'em, so bannish 'em," very childish, hopeless, and desperately defensive, but it's fun to watch unfold, like little kids who can't get it their way.

SkinWalker and James R have banned me several times, though they say only twice, so they are preparing for their "three strikes and you're out" rap, what a joke, such desperation, dealt with ala schoolyard tactics, very immature, but "necessary."

its time to change. change.

Censorship? Your[fucking ridiculous] thread about dragons being real wasn't censored.

Censorship? Your[fucking ridiculous] thread about dragons being real wasn't censored.

dragons are real.

There are many historical records about dragons, but you don't trust many historical records, obviously.

Has there ever been a picture taken of a dragon? Or fossil evidence? No? Why's that?

The point is, why the desperation to insult and ban just because of a notion which calls into question mainstream thinking?

Maybe because that person doesn't actually provide any evidence to back up his assertions and just keeps repeating the same drivel?

52 infraction points

Historical records are evidence according to most folks, weird to hear you think differently, but not surprising in this case.

OMG I am outraged by the fascist treatment of a beacon of light like IAC.

Oh yeah I remember the "historical records" starting with the guy who was shown to be a fraud a century or so ago...

OMG I am outraged that spuriousmonkey is outraged. It's outrageous.

What are you babbling about Oli?

About my outrage about the injustice that was slapped in your weak-chinned face my friend.

Geoffrey of Monmouth? Remember... one of the top woowoos of his day.

He's not been shown to be a woowoo, he is hoped to be a woowoo, big difference.

oh, the terrible acts of fascism are not restricted to sciforums. I am outraged on behalf of god and humanity.

Go get some coffee spur.

OMG, the fascist capitalists don't let me, because I was lacking 20 cts in change!!! (eurocents, that's about 34$)

Insults and bannishments is the only way many here can "deal with" those who espouse the Biblical rendition of our ancient origins, "can't beat 'em, so bannish 'em," very childish, hopeless, and desperately defensive, but it's fun to watch unfold, like little kids who can't get it their way.

SkinWalker and James R have banned me several times, though they say only twice, so they are preparing for their "three strikes and you're out rap," what a joke, such desperation, dealt with ala schoolyard tactics, very immature, but "necessary."

Fuck off you retard.

Can I say the same thing to you, or is there a double standard here?

He's not been shown to be a woowoo, he is hoped to be a woowoo, big difference.

There you go again. Picking and selecting. There's a full list of authors that have proven Geoffrey to have made up his "histories".

What are some of the supposed proofs, or are you unaware of them?

For Geoffrey being a woowoo? I posted links to some of them in the dragon thread, so it would appear that you not only didn't read them you ignored them altogether.
Hmmm. Double standard?

OMG, if the bible didn't defraud Geoffrey then he is real!

Well tell us about a few of "the proofs," or run along.

Can I say the same thing to you, or is there a double standard here?
Don't bother saying anything, just rip out the pages from the Bible, roll them up, and shove it up your ass.

OMG...great idea!

I think Nick and Spur should start a radio show on Sirius Radio, it would be a big hit.

OMG, jesus would never do a radio show!

Jesus can fuck off to Hell.

Well tell us about a few of "the proofs," or run along.

Oh so it IS a double standard on your part. You provided links and expected them to be read. Which I did. And when I provide rebuttal links not only can't you be bothered to read them you decide that if I can't summarise them they are therefore wrong.
I take it all back. I previously thought you just misguided/ misinformed, but now I also realise you're a hypocritical arshole as well.

Why are you so bitter Nick?

Why are you so bitter Nick?
Because I love Satan!

If you can't paraphrase it, Oli, then you don't know what you're talking about.

Satan is a child of the Lord Nick. Do not hate the mysterious works of the Lord. Allah will bless you with virgins.

If you can't paraphrase it, Oli, then you don't know what you're talking about.

What are you waiting around for? Get shoving! Whats the problem? Need some lubrication?

The paraphrasing was done in the original thread. I'm finished with you altogether. You're a hypocrite and an idiot.How did you paraphrase the sources saying dragons are real? Oh wait "dragons are real".

I can and did paraphrase the historical records, Oli, and you can't paraphrase diddly, so there it is.

And did you read my posts? Not on the evidence you've provided here. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Goodbye.

Still can't say what it says? So why did you bring it up?

Insults and bannishments . . .
and ignore lists.

i've been put on ignore by ophiolite and spuriousmonkey because i dared to say science has not figured out how to create life in the lab.

a question i would like answered, when did msnbc and ansers.com become religious wacko websites?

Still can't say what it says? So why did you bring it up?

More hypocrisy or just an outright lie this time. I didn't bring it up.
And why should I paraphrase? - it's all in the original thread.

Insults and bannishments is the only way many here can "deal with" those who espouse the Biblical rendition of our ancient origins, "can't beat 'em, so bannish 'em," very childish, hopeless, and desperately defensive, but it's fun to watch unfold, like little kids who can't get it their way.


Like slowly boiling frogs methodically inching their way towards Revelation 13, the sheeple fulfill prophecy to a "T."

Nothing new under the sun.

Re: Topic Post

Ice Age, you would have better luck protesting that stupidity is a condition protected by the Americans With Disabilities Act.

In the meantime, please consider that it's not about the espousing of Biblical renditions, but rather the hypocrisy of demanding that such renditions be treated as something they are not. Seriously, what is the point of having any discussion if it just comes back to "Read the Bible and interpret it like I say you should"?

I suppose we could set certain standards, but I doubt the Biblical espousers would be pleased with the obligation to treat their own faith rationally and respectfully. Perhaps some folks would have the same problems with the Koran. But self-justifying and Cartesian circles, while they have their place, are easily answered. And insisting on self-justification is, in fact, disruptive. It's not that people are espousing the Bible, but that they're one-trick ponies.

That you're still here and not permanently banned is something I would ask you to consider. The truth of the matter, one that we moderators don't like to discuss publicly, is that we give folks like you and others preferential treatment. That is, there are a number of posters who make the depiction of their own idiocy the height of aspiration. And we'd like to do something about this increasingly disruptive problem. But we're also aware that these problems are largely concentrated within a few, overlapping, thematic arguments. The result is that handling these issues in accordance with the rules we occasionally drag out for authenticity would cause the appearance of a disproportionate dismissal of Biblical espousers and political conservatives. At which point we enter the insoluble back-and-forth about whether it is the sentiments and beliefs, or the methods of expression.

If you wish to be treated with respect, conduct yourselves respectfully. True, 'tis discouraging to see so many people hop so quickly on the condemnation train, but what are they to do when it seems their obligation to justice is to stand around in the rain waiting for you to do something useful or impressive while you simultaneously demand the audience and lash against them for standing around in the rain watching you?

You want the cake? You want to eat it, too? Fine, just stop smearing the other party guests with frosting and then complaining that they're stealing your cake. When you make such a naked spectacle of it, well, we can't help but notice the emasculation, and--as is our own damn fault--we can't help but feel just a bit sorry for the blissfully-unaware eunuchs touting the size of their absent prowess.

Fascinating but what's he talking about? Religion? Earth?

What's the difference between a recorded fictional legend and a "historical record"?

That's not serious question is it?

What's the difference between a recorded fictional legend and a "historical record"?

One of them actually visits the toilet to have a good shit, the other one doesn't.

Fascinating but what's he talking about? Religion? Earth?
He's talking about how the Bible is a literal record of history.

Basiclally, he's talking shite.

He's talking about how the Bible is a literal record of history.

Basiclally, he's talking shite.

unless the bible is a literal record of history!

unless the bible is a literal record of history!
Bugger, I didnt think of that.

well, we can deconstruct that notion here if you want to.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

basically the bible says that the earth was created before the sun was. He created the earth and the heavens.

and then:

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

then he created light, which much indicate he created the sun.

Obviously the bible already goes wrong in the first 3 verses.

well, a satanist would say that of course.

unless the bible is a literal record of history!

*************
M*W: If one little bit is not historical, then the whole bible is not historical. Let's see:

1) A&E were not real people but allegorical in the literature. My claim is that they were stories concocted by nomads when watching the night skies and the constellations Bootes, Virgo and Serpens. (Acharya S., D. Fiedeler et al.)

2) Recent biblical scholars have proven there was no Exodus, and no golden chariot wheels found in the Red Sea. (A. Osman, A. Gardiner, et al.)

3) The gospels were not written by who the bible says they were. (A. Osman et al.)

4) The NT may have been written as a parody by the Romans. (J. Atwill, F. Carotta et al.)

5) The Ten Commandments were taken from earlier writings like the Code of Hammurabi.

6) The story of Noah's Ark and the Flood was taken from the story of Giglimesh which occurred thousands of years earlier.

7) The story of Moses in the Bulrushes was taken from the more ancient story of Sargon.

So, the bible in its entirety cannot be deemed as historical.

Oh Jesus! Look what you've done ^, spurious monkey..

sorry!! :bawl:

IceAgeCivilizations:

You might have had more credibility if you'd waited a few days after coming back from your temporary ban before complaining about bad moderation. Instead, you just look like one more disgruntled poster who wants to blame the moderators for the consequences of his own actions rather than taking some personal responsibility for what he posts in the first place.

By the way, you haven't, to my knowledge, ever been banned on account of the content of your claims. You have been banned for being generally disruptive, insulting, and for trolling your opinions in threads on completely different topics.

The infraction system is a guide to what is and is not acceptable. In your short time on sciforums, you have earned over 80 infraction points. The most that can be given for a single offense is 5 points.

Needless to say, there are members here who have not earned a single point since the infraction system was introduced.

Our general policy is to temporarily ban a member when they exceed 20 unexpired infraction points. Points expire automatically 10 days after the infraction is given.

If you can control yourself and avoid trolling, you will not be banned from sciforums. If you cannot alter your behaviour to avoid attracting infractions, you will quickly find yourself banned again. Your next ban, being a third offense, will of course be longer than your first two, so think carefully as you continue to post.

Good luck.

Historical records are evidence according to most folks, weird to hear you think differently, but not surprising in this case.

but they are not reliable and most of your evidence comes from sources that i would have to say not meaning any offense that when looked at closely are highly biased

Dear Ice Age Civilisations,
you are correct that I condemn and ridicule you, even though your own actions do this even better than I can.
I do so not because of your beliefs, (which you are free to hold, fondle, or even make love to) but because of the paucity of justification in your many posts. I could present a vastly superior critique of evolution and of the many holes currently present in the theory than you. How can I have respect for an individual who is so incompetent at presenting his side of the argument that I could do a better job in my sleep.

If you want to avoid infractions, banning and general ridicule, try posting meaningful, thoughtful, structured posts, with clear goals and appropriate references. Otherwise, you deserve all you get.

Ophi, I would crush you in a mano on mano debate, and spur would take it on his weak little chin too.

Oh, and by the way James R, "disruptive," as you say I am, is because I'm throwing monkey wrenches in your gears, so you obviously don't like that. Grow up and learn to deal with objections in an intelligent manner, otherwise, you come off like a Stalinist, your post was right on cue, thanks.

By the way James R, "disruptive," as you say I am, is because I'm throwing monkey wrenches in your gears, so you obviously don't like that.

What I don't like is unsupported nonsense. But my personal likes and dislikes are irrelevant as far as the forum rules go.

It's trolling that will cause you to run into problems with infractions, bannings etc. And personal attacks, posting violent material etc. etc.

Many consider yours and Skin's behavior to be trolling, as well as the insults you dispense, so clean your own house.

Many consider yours and Skin's behavior to be trolling, as well as the insults you dispense, so clean your own house.

Without evidence, such comments are worthless.

You have insulted me for months, and when that didn't work, you banned me, you can't successfully debate me, so you act like Stalin and play the ban card, quite pathetic, the same holds for Skin, walking talking monotone Darwinite propagandists and social engineers, eew.

Ophi, I would crush you in a mano on mano debate, and spur would take it on his weak little chin too.It is good to see that your delusions extend to your self evaluation and are not limited to quaint misinterpretations of science. As I've said before I admire consistency.
Seriously, you have not the first idea how to debate. You are moderately competent at infuriating through inanity, but that is a temporary blight.

Oh, so you're a moderator too?

Oh, so you're a moderator too?
as matter of fact he is, on another forum.

You have insulted me for months, and when that didn't work, you banned me, you can't successfully debate me, so you act like Stalin and play the ban card, quite pathetic, the same holds for Skin, walking talking monotone Darwinite propagandists and social engineers, eew.

Debate you? What's to debate?

Your modus operandi is to make one-line statements unsupported by any evidence or line of argument.

There's nothing worth taking time to refute in your collection of anti-scientific claptrap.

If you're serious about having a proper debate, start a thread and post some actual arguments. Hint: Try to aim for a post that is longer than 2 lines. Try to include references to the scientific literature.

Let me know if you manage to achieve this. Then we can have a debate.

James R, if you would stop deleting my posts so frequently, you might see more length in some posts, but why type long and hard only to have it deleted, you defeat your own stated desire, bad policy, but then, you are just looking for and making up excuses to not face the absurdity of many of your positions.