Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

1…816817818820822

Comments

  • #24572
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Wicknight wrote: »
    This is basically the evolution of a land mammals into whales over a space of about 50 million years. It involves many instances of new species arising (macro-evolution) and would have involved millions of instances of individual micro-evolutionary changes.
    The hind leg bones on the last picture on the Wikipedia page linked are fascinating. There are two explanations for it: God put it there in the design for no apparent reason other than to fool us, or they are the vestigial remains of the hind legs that the ancient ancestors of modern whales walked around on.

    Unless one of those here who does not believe in macro-evolution has an alternate explanation? :)


  • #24573
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    God put it there in the design for no apparent reason other than to fool us

    tumblr_leb7qaNHX01qa8sgi.jpg


  • #24574
    jmark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 121 ✭✭jmark


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    The hind leg bones on the last picture on the Wikipedia page linked are fascinating. There are two explanations for it: God put it there in the design for no apparent reason other than to fool us, or they are the vestigial remains of the hind legs that the ancient ancestors of modern whales walked around on.

    Unless one of those here who does not believe in macro-evolution has an alternate explanation? :)

    I was fascinated to look at them too - I would like to see more about these hind legs. Seems to me that you have to come with a preconceived notion that they are legs to see them as legs. As for the false horns of a dilemma above, it seems to me that there is another option - they arent legs, but may have had another purpose.

    In either case I would be far more interested if the evolutionary flow had been the other way around from no legs to legs - from simplicity to complexity. Surely the loss of information isnt what evolution is about?


  • #24575
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    jmark wrote: »
    I was fascinated to look at them too - I would like to see more about these hind legs. Seems to me that you have to come with a preconceived notion that they are legs to see them as legs. As for the false horns of a dilemma above, it seems to me that there is another option - they arent legs, but may have had another purpose.
    Well, it's a 'preconceived notion' in the sense that as you look at older and older fossils of the same family line you see the 'leg bones' getting bigger and bigger and joining up with the rest of the skeleton until you have a land animal that walks around on four legs. Can you explain why this might be, other than due to my line of thinking?
    jmark wrote: »
    In either case I would be far more interested if the evolutionary flow had been the other way around from no legs to legs - from simplicity to complexity. Surely the loss of information isnt what evolution is about?
    I don't see why this would be more interesting. Evolution is about what works to give an animal a survival advantage at a particular moment. 'Gaining' or 'losing' 'information' doesn't come into it - it's a side effect at best.


  • #24576
    CiaranMT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭CiaranMT


    jmark wrote: »
    In either case I would be far more interested if the evolutionary flow had been the other way around from no legs to legs - from simplicity to complexity. Surely the loss of information isnt what evolution is about?

    Dinosaur to modern day hen. Doesn't exactly qualify as becoming more complex, does it?

    As Monty above mentions, it's about survival, not necessarily increasing complexity.

    This in fact can be a negative development, where you see species of plant and animal life so finely attuned to their habitat, that when the habitat is disturbed, they have no way of dealing with the change and die off.


  • Advertisement
  • #24577
    jmark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 121 ✭✭jmark


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Well, it's a 'preconceived notion' in the sense that as you look at older and older fossils of the same family line you see the 'leg bones' getting bigger and bigger and joining up with the rest of the skeleton until you have a land animal that walks around on four legs. Can you explain why this might be, other than due to my line of thinking?

    I'm sorry, can you give me a picture/link that shows actual skeletons/fossils demonstrating these legs getting longer and longer? (Honest question)
    I don't see why this would be more interesting. Evolution is about what works to give an animal a survival advantage at a particular moment. 'Gaining' or 'losing' 'information' doesn't come into it - it's a side effect at best.

    Evolution in any one instance is about survival advantage - true. But overall surely the progression needs to go from simple life forms to more complex ones? Otherwise how did we get here?


  • #24578
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    jmark wrote: »
    I'm sorry, can you give me a picture/link that shows actual skeletons/fossils demonstrating these legs getting longer and longer? (Honest question)
    It might astonish you to learn that I don't keep a library of this stuff to hand :) but I can suggest starting at the bottom of that Wikipedia page and working your way up through the pictures.
    jmark wrote: »
    Evolution in any one instance is about survival advantage - true. But overall surely the progression needs to go from simple life forms to more complex ones? Otherwise how did we get here?
    We got here through a sequence of progressions where increased complexity and intelligence were advantageous at each stage, although it's possible there may have been some 'backward' steps along the way. Complexity is only a survival trait if it's advantageous. We still have jelly fish floating in the oceans that have no brains. There are still single cellular life forms.

    If you stuck some chameleons in a totally dark cave environment with their wonderful colour-changing camouflage and came back after a few million years to see how their descendants look, you would find that they had lost that ability as it 'cost' them energy and conferred no advantage. It's also likely that they would be blind for the same reason. Some element of their eyes would probably exist as the vestigial remnants, much like the whale's leg bones, but they won't be as 'complex' as a properly working eye.

    So 'complexity' will only exist as long as it provides a survival advantage in a given environment.


  • #24579
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    jmark wrote: »
    I was fascinated to look at them too - I would like to see more about these hind legs. Seems to me that you have to come with a preconceived notion that they are legs to see them as legs. As for the false horns of a dilemma above, it seems to me that there is another option - they arent legs, but may have had another purpose.

    In either case I would be far more interested if the evolutionary flow had been the other way around from no legs to legs - from simplicity to complexity. Surely the loss of information isnt what evolution is about?

    Evolution is a process of adaptation, it is not trying to do anything such as increase information or increase complexity. Bacteria have been around for billions of years so have animals. One is vastly more complex than the other but neither are more or less evolved than the other.

    Genetic mutations can increase or decrease the complexity of the genetic code (add information as you would say, but this is some what inaccurate term to use, again more popular with Creationists than biologists) and/or the phenotype produced by the genetic code (a less complex genetic code may produce a more complex phenotype).

    This is an observed fact though Creationists continue to dispute it.

    How well this change adapts the organism to the ever changing environment will decide whether the organism is selected by the process of natural selection.

    So the first thing you need to do to properly understand the theory is to leave the notion that evolution is about increasing in complexity.


  • #24580
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    jmark wrote: »
    I was fascinated to look at them too - I would like to see more about these hind legs. Seems to me that you have to come with a preconceived notion that they are legs to see them as legs.

    Well no it is the other way around. Without evolution these bones would just look like weird bones in the back of the animals. Technically they aren't legs. A more accurate description would be that they were legs. Biologists an identify the bones, the same way that they can tell which bone is your femur, and track the bones throughout the fossil record.

    Those bones in the whale were the hind legs of its ancestors. This is not a preconceived notion, it is the conclusion of the evidence.


  • #24581
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    Hang on! Is there some natural law that says reducing information reduces complexity?

    I don't think so; heads or tails? That is the nature of 'randomness'.

    I would say that modern humans are simpler than their ancestors precisely because they have lost information; redundant information.

    And that is what leads to evolutionary dead ends; when enough information has been lost to prevent a transition between 'kinds'.

    Life is a kaleidoscope; same shapes, different patterns.


  • Advertisement
  • #24582
    jmark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 121 ✭✭jmark


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    We got here through a sequence of progressions where increased complexity and intelligence were advantageous at each stage, although it's possible there may have been some 'backward' steps along the way. Complexity is only a survival trait if it's advantageous. We still have jelly fish floating in the oceans that have no brains. There are still single cellular life forms.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Evolution is a process of adaptation, it is not trying to do anything such as increase information or increase complexity. Bacteria have been around for billions of years so have animals. One is vastly more complex than the other but neither are more or less evolved than the other.

    Yes we still have jellyfish and single celled creatures, and bacteria. And when you compare across categories/lifeforms – whatever we want to call them – some are more, some less complex, but yet adequately adapted for their environment. That’s not my point.

    What I’m trying to get my head around is this. In my scheme of things if God created different types/categories/lifeforms, I see no issue with there being adaptation subsequently within those lifeforms so that they are suited to their environment – whales might have walked on land as semi aquatic creatures possibly though with long tails, and now become totally aquatic creatures.

    In this scheme variation, adaptation, mutation can all take place. I am completely at home with whales losing legs, chameleons losing eyes, bacteria staying ‘uncomplex’, jellyfish still having no brains. I am completely at home biblically with change and adaptation. Nepalese people have better lung capacity than I do because of where they live, but they are still people.

    My scheme can live with ‘loss of information/complexity’. I believe complexity was there from the start to be lost, it seems to me that you have to get up to the chameleon having eyes in the first place to lose, and the whale having legs to lose.

    What I see little evidence for is the progress of all of life from one simple lifeform to the multiplicity of lifeforms today (some complex).

    I appreciate your patience with me (both of you) as I clearly use terms in ways not normal to the discussion!


  • #24583
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    jmark wrote: »
    Yes we still have jellyfish and single celled creatures, and bacteria. And when you compare across categories/lifeforms – whatever we want to call them – some are more, some less complex, but yet adequately adapted for their environment. That’s not my point.

    What I’m trying to get my head around is this. In my scheme of things if God created different types/categories/lifeforms, I see no issue with there being adaptation subsequently within those lifeforms so that they are suited to their environment – whales might have walked on land as semi aquatic creatures possibly though with long tails, and now become totally aquatic creatures.

    In this scheme variation, adaptation, mutation can all take place. I am completely at home with whales losing legs, chameleons losing eyes, bacteria staying ‘uncomplex’, jellyfish still having no brains. I am completely at home biblically with change and adaptation. Nepalese people have better lung capacity than I do because of where they live, but they are still people.

    My scheme can live with ‘loss of information/complexity’. I believe complexity was there from the start to be lost, it seems to me that you have to get up to the chameleon having eyes in the first place to lose, and the whale having legs to lose.

    What I see little evidence for is the progress of all of life from one simple lifeform to the multiplicity of lifeforms today (some complex).

    I appreciate your patience with me (both of you) as I clearly use terms in ways not normal to the discussion!

    Firstly losing a phenotype is not any easier than gaining one. Bits don't drop off, they require a mutation or series of mutations that produce a new organism that doesn't grow these organs but still manages to function and live.

    So the Creationist idea that loss of features is a simple process is false. It is as much evolution as gaining features, the process is the same as are the challenges. It is as easy for you to be born with an extra hand than it is to be born missing a hand (plenty of people are born with extra fingers and toes)

    Secondly decrease in the genetic code can and does increase complexity. Chimpanzees have 2 more chromosomes than humans (we have 46 they have 48).

    Based on sequencing of both species genetic code biologists believe that humans diverged from our common ancestor because (among other reasons) 2 chromosomes fused to produce one. Chimps still have these 2 chromosomes.

    Most people would say that humans are more complex than chimps, but we have less code making up the genetic blue print.

    So even if we accepted the Creationist idea that genetic code can only be lost (not true), that still could produce more complex organisms. It is not how much code there is, it is what it is doing that matters.

    Some ferns have 100+ chromosomes but no one would say they are as complex as a human being.


  • #24584
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    jmark wrote: »
    Yes we still have jellyfish and single celled creatures, and bacteria. And when you compare across categories/lifeforms – whatever we want to call them – some are more, some less complex, but yet adequately adapted for their environment. That’s not my point.

    What I’m trying to get my head around is this. In my scheme of things if God created different types/categories/lifeforms, I see no issue with there being adaptation subsequently within those lifeforms so that they are suited to their environment – whales might have walked on land as semi aquatic creatures possibly though with long tails, and now become totally aquatic creatures.

    In this scheme variation, adaptation, mutation can all take place. I am completely at home with whales losing legs, chameleons losing eyes, bacteria staying ‘uncomplex’, jellyfish still having no brains. I am completely at home biblically with change and adaptation. Nepalese people have better lung capacity than I do because of where they live, but they are still people.

    My scheme can live with ‘loss of information/complexity’. I believe complexity was there from the start to be lost, it seems to me that you have to get up to the chameleon having eyes in the first place to lose, and the whale having legs to lose.

    What I see little evidence for is the progress of all of life from one simple lifeform to the multiplicity of lifeforms today (some complex).

    I appreciate your patience with me (both of you) as I clearly use terms in ways not normal to the discussion!

    Unfortunately, creationist literature can be effective in convincing people there is no overarching tree of life/evolution above "kinds". The truth is, if we had no evidence other than the fossil record, it would still categorically support a common ancestor hypothesis, as the geographical distribution correlates with the temporal fossil record in a manner that would only occur if there was a common ancestor. Similarly, if we didn't have the fossil record at all, and only had genetic records, it would still overwhelmingly support common ancestry.

    Furthermore, there is no physical law which prevents the increase in biological information through the natural selection of random mutations. When creationists say "no new information", they are using a meaningless definition of information that bears no relation to biological development.


  • #24585
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Morbert wrote: »
    Unfortunately, creationist literature can be effective in convincing people there is no overarching tree of life/evolution above "kinds".

    This is a good point. A lot of people who have issues with evolution arrive at that conclusion after reading Creationist literature and making the mistake of assuming what the Creationists are saying is all true.

    It isn't. Either through malice or ignorance a lot if not most of the Creationist literature is misrepresenting the facts.

    Again people should remind themselves that millions of biologists around the world work on this stuff. They aren't all just sitting around twiddling their thumbs.

    The same scientific process that discovers electromagnetism and makes planes fly is the one used to discover biological evolution.

    The greatest mis-truth Creationists managed to get into the social consciousness is the idea that evolution is some how this singled out scientific theory out on the edge some where.

    It isn't. It is a mainstream supported scientific theory. If you believe there is something wrong with evolution and how scientists arrived at it you need to believe there is something wrong with science in general.

    A lot of Creationist do actually believe this (as demonstrated by attempts to re-define the definition of science in the Dover trial), but it makes little sense to single out evolution.


  • #24586
    jmark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 121 ✭✭jmark


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Again people should remind themselves that millions of biologists around the world work on this stuff. They aren't all just sitting around twiddling their thumbs.

    Numbers of scientists dont make a theory right. A theory make work in as far as it goes (ie Newtons laws) but not necessarily be completely right.

    As far as the work goes - it seems to me that there is a difference between historical biology (ie a biology that seeks to determine what happened in the past), and biology that works with the present. Of the millions of biologists, how many are involved in this and how many just assume its findings and get on with everyday biology?

    Not a new discussion topic - just an observation on using numbers!
    The same scientific process that discovers electromagnetism and makes planes fly is the one used to discover biological evolution.

    I would disagree. There is an historical extrapolation on which the theory of macro evolution is based that is not present in many other aspects of science. In many ways the theory of evolution, as explaining the origins of man, is biology attempting to do history. A valid enough enterprise, but not in the same field as electromagnetism, or jet propulsion. One examines what is seen in the present and applies it to the present. The other examines what is seen in the present and attempts to apply it to the past.

    To disbelieve evolution doesnt require you to disbelieve science in general, but to disagree with the way the jigsaw pieces of history are put together. It seems to me that there are a lot of missing pieces, and the extrapolations extend over a lot of empty space.
    Morbert said

    The truth is, if we had no evidence other than the fossil record, it would still categorically support a common ancestor hypothesis, as the geographical distribution correlates with the temporal fossil record in a manner that would only occur if there was a common ancestor. Similarly, if we didn't have the fossil record at all, and only had genetic records, it would still overwhelmingly support common ancestry.

    I think the evidence could support that, but I'm not yet convinced it has to.

    Anyway men/women, I have enjoyed the discussion. It is clear to me that I am nearing the limit of my current knowledge, and will bow out here for the meantime rather than bluff. :)

    If you had one or two books to recommend on the subject what would you recommend - especially on Morbert's quote.


  • #24587
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    jmark wrote: »

    I would disagree. There is an historical extrapolation on which the theory of macro evolution is based that is not present in many other aspects of science. In many ways the theory of evolution, as explaining the origins of man, is biology attempting to do history. A valid enough enterprise, but not in the same field as electromagnetism, or jet propulsion. One examines what is seen in the present and applies it to the present. The other examines what is seen in the present and attempts to apply it to the past.
    ....
    If you had one or two books to recommend on the subject what would you recommend - especially on Morbert's quote.

    Not read : watch 45 mins .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUu5hBp1AU8

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e0Ic03c6f8

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbbh1P6DW5I

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QywH7F0eKj0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_Dad_GhkT4


    Obviously, books are better, but if you just donate 10 mins of your time or the full 45, you'll see why the piece I quoted of you is completely wrong.


  • #24588
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    jmark wrote: »
    Numbers of scientists dont make a theory right.

    A theory make work in as far as it goes (ie Newtons laws) but not necessarily be completely right.

    No, but there would have to be something really weird going on if millions of biologists were using a theory in their work that was completely wrong.

    Specific details in specific areas of evolutionary theory are debated and queried. But there is no question that evolution is the explanation for life on Earth. It is as supported a theory as any other established theories, such as electromagnetism or hydrodynamics.
    jmark wrote: »
    As far as the work goes - it seems to me that there is a difference between historical biology (ie a biology that seeks to determine what happened in the past), and biology that works with the present.
    There isn't.

    Such an idea is like saying well you can use the theory of electro-magnatism to wire this house now but you can't use it to figure out what cased an electrical fire 2 weeks ago.

    All science, fundamentally, is historical science. Whether you are looking at a fossil from 4 million years ago, a house fire from 2 weeks ago or the results of the a collision of the LHC from 2 microseconds ago, all science is about modelling processes using evidence from that process that have already happened.
    jmark wrote: »
    Of the millions of biologists, how many are involved in this and how many just assume its findings and get on with everyday biology?
    There is no everyday biology without evolution, as Malty's videos make a case for.

    Malty's videos go into more detail on this fact. A particularly good example that I've seen before but that is summed up very well in the video, is the mystery of why humans don't produce their own Vit C.

    The idea that biologists working on human problems work with a different notion that "historic" biologists in relation to Vit C is nonsense. The reason we don't produce Vit C happened millions of years ago, but it has consequences to this day for how biologists look at the vitamin production process in humans.

    Biologists cannot just switch off evolution as a theory when they come to work on present day biology.

    As Dobzhansky once famously said

    Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution
    jmark wrote: »
    I would disagree. There is an historical extrapolation on which the theory of macro evolution is based that is not present in many other aspects of science. In many ways the theory of evolution, as explaining the origins of man, is biology attempting to do history.

    All science involves "do[ing] history". All scientific evidence has already happened. The only different is the time scale, from micro-seconds to billions of years.

    If you can explain how there is a fundamental difference once you get passed a particular point on the time scale, I'm all ears.


  • #24589
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Not read : watch 45 mins

    Excellent introduction. I agree that more detail is needed to understand evolution properly, but this is a good start and certain dispels the more moronic Creationist mis-representations of evolution.


  • #24590
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    jmark wrote: »
    Numbers of scientists dont make a theory right. A theory make work in as far as it goes (ie Newtons laws) but not necessarily be completely right.

    Did you know that the 'transistor' was invented as a result of the implications of quantum physics?

    Silicon technology is the result of a theory.

    Science is in the business of checking and rechecking. In order to make a theory right, it takes many scientists to test the right theory.

    And unless the evidence conflicts with theory, the theory becomes a working hypothesis.

    It's not about what's right or wrong, it's about what works.

    A belief in God does not lead to silicon technology and belief in silicon technology does not lead to God.

    As an aside, could you explain why an omnipotent being (God) requires validation from bio-chemical machines (humans)? It seem like desperation to me.


  • #24591
    CiaranMT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭CiaranMT


    himnextdoor wrote: »


    As an aside, could you explain why an omnipotent being (God) requires validation from bio-chemical machines (humans)? It seem like desperation to me.

    That could be asked at every juncture on religious fora, tbh...


  • Advertisement
  • #24592
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    This is a good point. A lot of people who have issues with evolution arrive at that conclusion after reading Creationist literature and making the mistake of assuming what the Creationists are saying is all true.
    Pondkind to Mankind Evolution is so illogical that a 5 year old could see through it ... and people don't need to read Creation Science literature to work that one out.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    It isn't. Either through malice or ignorance a lot if not most of the Creationist literature is misrepresenting the facts.
    ... the facts are the facts ... and they all support direct creation by an intelligence or intelligences unknown.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Again people should remind themselves that millions of biologists around the world work on this stuff. They aren't all just sitting around twiddling their thumbs.
    ... natural selection of the genetic diversity compliment infused in each Kind at creation does occur ... but Pondkind to Mankind evolution has never occurred.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    The same scientific process that discovers electromagnetism and makes planes fly is the one used to discover biological evolution.
    Not so ... the study of Electromagnetism and Avionics are operative sciences ... but the study of tentative hypotheses on Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Evolution are speculative forensic endeavours.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    The greatest mis-truth Creationists managed to get into the social consciousness is the idea that evolution is some how this singled out scientific theory out on the edge some where.
    Pondkind to Mankind Evolution is a belief that is based on the circular argument that if life originated by purely materialistic means, then there must have been a process unknown to science that produced the Complex Functional Specific Information found in living organisms.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    It isn't. It is a mainstream supported scientific theory. If you believe there is something wrong with evolution and how scientists arrived at it you need to believe there is something wrong with science in general.
    ... Spontaneous Evolution and Abiogenesis is the point where Atheism and God meet ... and so far the God hypothesis is winning hands down.:D


  • #24593
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Ah look the fake Christian JC is back. How goes pretending to be a Creationist to troll internet forums?

    Trollface_Coolface_Collection-s755x1255-72737.png


  • #24594
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Ah look the fake Christian JC is back. How goes pretending to be a Creationist to troll internet forums?

    Trollface_Coolface_Collection-s755x1255-72737.png
    I am not going to grace your juvenile, foul-mouthed cartoons with a comment.

    I would simply ask other people on this thread to compare and contrast my reasoned polite answers in my previous post #24592 ... with your irrational impolite posting ... and I'll leave it up to them as to who they will believe.:(


  • #24595
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    I am not going to grace your juvenile, bad-mouthed cartoons with a comment.

    No? Too close to the bone perhaps? Too embarrassed that you have been exposed perhaps?

    I notice you didn't deny being a troll, you seem to just boast about being a polite one ;)

    troll+7.jpg


  • #24596
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Ah look the fake Christian JC is back. How goes pretending to be a Creationist to troll internet forums?
    I'm a Born Again Saved Christian and a Creation Scientist ... and I'm beating the pants off you guys over on the Atheist Forum ... and there are hundreds of you guys ... against me ... but with God on my side ... nobody can come against me.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74196223#post74196223


  • #24597
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    I'm a Born Again Saved Christian and a Creation Scientist

    Well we both know that isn't true, you have already admitted as much.

    You have been exposed on the A&A forum. Now just, you know, do the decent thing stop pretending and let real Christians use this thread.


  • #24598
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    No? Too close to the bone perhaps? Too embarrassed that you have been exposed perhaps?

    I notice you didn't deny being a troll, you seem to just boast about being a polite one ;)
    I'm no troll ... I say what I mean ... and I mean what I say ... and your're the one spamming and trolling this thread with your juvenile foul-mouthed 'cartoons'!!!:(


  • #24599
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    I'm no troll ... I say what I mean ... and I mean what I say ... and your're the one spamming and trolling this thread with your juvenile foul-mouthed 'cartoons'!!!:(

    You asked me questions.

    Since we have already established you are not a Christian you thus cannot be a Christian Creationists.

    Again what you actually are is anyone's guess. But there is no point in me responding to you as if you were a genuine Christian Creationist. That is just perpetuating your little troll fantasy.

    Do you have anything else to add?

    Perhaps you want to stop pretending, admit what you really are, and then I will respond to that person, not your little troll face?


  • #24600
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    I'm a Born Again Saved Christian and a Creation Scientist

    Wicknight
    Well we both know that isn't true, you have already admitted as much.

    You have been exposed on the A&A forum. Now just, you know, do the decent thing stop pretending and let real Christians use this thread.
    I say what I mean and I mean what I say ... and when I say I am a Born Again Saved Christian ... then you may believe it.


  • Advertisement
  • #24601
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Again what you actually are is anyone's guess. But there is no point in me responding to you as if you were a genuine Christian Creationist. That is just perpetuating your little troll fantasy.
    ... the trolling and the fantasy are all on your side of the equation!!!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement