Dawinists standing on the panic button.

[kptvol]

God isn't real because some guy on a message board thinks some Jainist's statement is better than the Ten Commandments. Someone alert the Pope.

 

[rjd970]

Nowhere have I suggested the above. You are assuming something about my views that just isn't there.

You said this in regards to my point that you are using lack of evidence as support for there being a creator. I asked specifically what would discredit the idea of a creator earlier in this thread. How am I supposed to interpret it any other way when you post stuff like this:

I'd need to see compelling evidence demonstrating the creation of life from the "Big Bang" onto the current diversity. We have bits of unlinked evidence that doesn't preclude the notion of a creator.

I'd need to see compelling evidence of why across cultures and time there is a consistent human sense, feeling, urge to connect with their spirituality.

On the above point, I'd like to see compelling evidence of what it is in humans that across time and culture have created remarkably consistent conceptions of what a creator would be like and values.

On are topic of morality, I'd like to see compelling evidence explaining why we do have the common bits of morality across time and cultures.

In short, I'd need to see a better explanation or Grand Theory that accounts for the incredible complexity of both the physical and spiritual phenomena that we encounter.

At the current time and given the current evidence the notion of an intelligent creator makes more sense than assuming there isn't one.

This sounds suspciously like you are using lack of evidence as support for your default position, as opposed to evidence for. I ask again, what evidence is there for the belief that there is a creator behind everything?

It is your opinion but recognize your position is also based on an underlying philosophy - that of the scientific method as THE way of knowing.

All I have said is it is the best way of "knowing". Not the only way.

Why do you keep going back to this "hypothetical Christian" as a position to attack? I've told you repeatedly my position - I'm not a devout Christian.

Because you keep bringing it up. I was addressing this:

Clearly you don't believe it happened so why tie it such a larger argument against Christianity to one thing in the Bible? I'm quite sure I could find an inconsistency with any of the scientific explanations you use but it wouldn't invalidate the entire theory.

I never made the claim the creator is Christian. The topic of the thread is basically creator view vs non-creator view. I've been working along those lines since the beginning. When you take to the "devout Christian" view, you are really arguing against a specific religion rather than against a creator. That's the point I"ve been trying to make.

I never said you did, but others in this thread have, and this whole integration of Christianity into the debate began when others made the claim and then took offense to what I said. Both of us have seemed to run with it, specifically the merits of the 10th commandment. All you said was one mistake doesn't discredit the whole religious belief, and I said it does if the God at the center of it was supposed to be perfect. I'm perfectly fine with dropping the 10 commandment/religious talk and focusing on the creator non-creator part of this discussion. It's the more worthwhile debate IMO anyway.

If you comment is using Western Democracy vs. other political systems as analogy of logical empiricism vs other philosophies of uncovering knowledge I would say this is strong evidence for my point. Claiming Western Democracy is not perfect but better than the alternative shows:
1. It is one of many approaches that could be chosen (just as in the case of ways of uncovering knowledge or truth)

2. The choice is one made by man and can be debated on its merits (many will disagree with which choice is better)

3. It is not a complete approach since others offer advantages and disadvantages that WD doesn't.

Not a single word of that takes away from my point that one is still better than the other. The same way democracy, despite its flaws, is still by far the best form of government. The merits of empirically proving truth is exactly what I have been trying to argue. Let's see the empirical evidence for a creator. I'm honestly ready to listen.

Where is the evidence against a creator?

Over 99% of all life on this earth that has ever existed is now extinct, this fact alone shows that a creator (at least not an intelligent one) didn't have a guiding hand in at least having something to do with life on this planet. We can look at awe in the beautiful and elegant symmetry of the solar system and think how there couldn't be a creator, yet fail to recognize its insistence on instability and entropy, with a central star that is all but a ticking time bomb ready to devour the entire complex. We can look at the massive expanse of universe and ask what exactly the creator had in mind with all of the black holes, galaxies, stars, nebulei, and and apparent random and disordered widespread extinction of such entities.

Construing such observations as the work of a creator is an excercise in futility and bad philosophy. This all suggests randomness, and lack of order, with little caring for anything massive in the universe...much less a small indiscriminate planet, orbiting normal star, on the corner of an ordinary spiral galaxy, that can support some life, on some of its surface, some of the time.

 

[gsvol]

God isn't real because some guy on a message board thinks some Jainist's statement is better than the Ten Commandments. Someone alert the Pope.

Skip the Pope, alert God!!

1989; "God is dead" Time Magazine

2009; "Time Magazine is dead." God

OK, say best known science is that the universe is expanding and cooling.

Then why are we fighting global warming???

The Energy Department has spent more (inflation-adjusted) billions of dollars on so-called alternative clean energy research projects than the combined cost of the entire Apollo program that put American astronauts on the moon and the Manhatten Project that developed the atomic bomb. In return we get less than one percent of our energy from those sources.

The thoughts of Jason Lisle, a PhD in astrophysics.

 

[emainvol]

Skip the Pope, alert God!!

1989; "God is dead" Time Magazine

2009; "Time Magazine is dead." God

OK, say best known science is that the universe is expanding and cooling.

Then why are we fighting global warming???

The Energy Department has spent more (inflation-adjusted) billions of dollars on so-called alternative clean energy research projects than the combined cost of the entire Apollo program that put American astronauts on the moon and the Manhatten Project that developed the atomic bomb. In return we get less than one percent of our energy from those sources.

The thoughts of Jason Lisle, a PhD in astrophysics.

I may be wrong, but I think the Time cover you are talking about read "Is God dead?"

 

[HawaiiVol]

I may be wrong, but I think the Time cover you are talking about read "Is God dead?"

No, you're right, gs is wrong, again, and not just on the title.

TIME Magazine Cover: Is God Dead? - Apr. 8, 1966 - Religion

 

[BigPapaVol]

Over 99% of all life on this earth that has ever existed is now extinct, this fact alone shows that a creator (at least not an intelligent one) didn't have a guiding hand in at least having something to do with life on this planet. We can look at awe in the beautiful and elegant symmetry of the solar system and think how there couldn't be a creator, yet fail to recognize its insistence on instability and entropy, with a central star that is all but a ticking time bomb ready to devour the entire complex. We can look at the massive expanse of universe and ask what exactly the creator had in mind with all of the black holes, galaxies, stars, nebulei, and and apparent random and disordered widespread extinction of such entities.

Construing such observations as the work of a creator is an excercise in futility and bad philosophy. This all suggests randomness, and lack of order, with little caring for anything massive in the universe...much less a small indiscriminate planet, orbiting normal star, on the corner of an ordinary spiral galaxy, that can support some life, on some of its surface, some of the time.

This plagiarized piece of trash has every bit the number of facts that Ptolemy's view of the universe had. This proved, unequivocally, that you have the same amount of proof that everyone else does and take the same leap of faith that everyone else does too.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[kptvol]

This plagiarized piece of trash has every bit the number of facts that Ptolemy's view of the universe had. This proved, unequivocally, that you have the same amount of proof that everyone else does and take the same leap of faith that everyone else does too.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Pretty arrogant to assume that a design doesn't exist if he can't identify it. That Dio joke that went over his head must not have been a joke at all.

 

[KB5252]

I think they should also block youtube, facebook, myspace...hell, even this place.

Those kids need to focus.

absolutely!

 

[rjd970]

This plagiarized piece of trash has every bit the number of facts that Ptolemy's view of the universe had. This proved, unequivocally, that you have the same amount of proof that everyone else does and take the same leap of faith that everyone else does too.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

That was all me. I honestly don't know who Ptolemy is and would be more than willing to tell you if I did take it from somewhere.

How exactly did this prove unequivocally anything? It still doesn't change the fact that the question was asked about evdience against, and I gave it. It is stunning you accuse me of arrogance with ill-informed (and wrong, for that matter) crap like this.

 

[JZVOL]

rjd maybe you should start your own movement since you are clearly smarter than any God that might be out there.

This is some of the most pathetic self serving garbage I've ever read.

 

[thunder5]

I'm still waiting on that link...or maybe you just can't provide it because of this...




Interesting...the 98% you speak of came from Steve Baldwin...the leader of the Council for National Policy, an ultra-conservative organization that is openly anti-homosexual...

And that 98% claim was then refuted, not substantiated by the FBI...

Again...those annoying little things called facts continue to get in your way

That report was deep sixed by Clinton and company.


Why not??

A 1988 study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual

# Homosexual activists Karla Jay and I Allen Young revealed in their 1979 Gay Report that 73% of all homosexuals I have acted as "chicken hawks" - that is, they have preyed on adolescent or younger boys.

# In a 1992 study published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, sex researchers K. Freud and R. I. Watson found that homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia, and that the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested




Keep living the dream yourself.

I have a life long friend who worked for the FBI in the White House liaison office, Clinton had those guys out of
there by noon his first day in office and quartered in a dilapidated old federal building and mostly had no contact with them for the next eight years, he also had sex crime reporting changed so that it didn't reflect unfavorably toward the lesbian, gay transexual element of society.



You're the one talking like he is 13 or 14 years old little buddy.

What about this post from me there little buddy...the one you've so conveniantly ignored?

You used the FBI as your 'source' on the 98% claim you made....and I showed you that not only does the FBI not substantiate that claim they refute it...

I'll give you this...you are a good dancer....

Unfortunately for you I'm not overwhlemed by the length of your posts and I'm able to still stick to the point that is you made an outragish claim which has been thrown back in your face....

Until you can explain why your '98%' claim was so egregiously wrong then I'm not interested in any of this other song and dance you've got

 

[BigPapaVol]

That was all me. I honestly don't know who Ptolemy is and would be more than willing to tell you if I did take it from somewhere.

How exactly did this prove unequivocally anything? It still doesn't change the fact that the question was asked about evdience against, and I gave it. It is stunning you accuse me of arrogance with ill-informed (and wrong, for that matter) crap like this.

That was your evidence that God doesn't exist. That was it. Trash about symmetry and asymmetry. The whole storehouse of it. Otherwise, you're back to refuting Genesis and the Pentateuch. Impressive.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[volinbham]

Over 99% of all life on this earth that has ever existed is now extinct, this fact alone shows that a creator (at least not an intelligent one) didn't have a guiding hand in at least having something to do with life on this planet.

This statement is pure speculation. Who knows what a creator's intent, approach or limitations were? It seems you are reverting back to a specific religion's story of the creation to discredit the broader notion.


We can look at awe in the beautiful and elegant symmetry of the solar system and think how there couldn't be a creator, yet fail to recognize its insistence on instability and entropy, with a central star that is all but a ticking time bomb ready to devour the entire complex. We can look at the massive expanse of universe and ask what exactly the creator had in mind with all of the black holes, galaxies, stars, nebulei, and and apparent random and disordered widespread extinction of such entities.

Asking such questions is fine but not having the answers isn't proof that there wasn't a creator. You suggest I'm using lack of evidence to prove existence (which I'm not). Here you appear to be using the inability to conceive of a creator's motives to prove there couldn't have been one.

Construing such observations as the work of a creator is an excercise in futility and bad philosophy.

Pure opinion.


This all suggests randomness, and lack of order, with little caring for anything massive in the universe...much less a small indiscriminate planet, orbiting normal star, on the corner of an ordinary spiral galaxy, that can support some life, on some of its surface, some of the time.

A few things to consider with your last comments:

The randomness itself opens the possibility that similar situations occur in other places throughout the universe. Belief in a creator doesn't require the assumption that Earth is the only place with life or even intelligent life. It certainly doesn't violate any assumptions I have about one.

The "randomness" you describe is also order based on the properties of the very matter that makes up the universe. Again, it is entirely conceivable (to me) that a plan was behind the properties of this matter.

Events unfolding in a random matter isn't inconsistent with the notion of a plan. For a small example, think of a random number generator. It's built upon know properties of the pieces yet when set in motion it results in "random" outcomes. A better example might be a learning neural network. The core bits and properties are designed in then the abilities and knowledge evolve.

 

[rjd970]

That was your evidence that God doesn't exist. That was it. Trash about symmetry and asymmetry. The whole storehouse of it. Otherwise, you're back to refuting Genesis and the Pentateuch. Impressive.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Again, ill-informed crap. We've moved on from the God discussion and are discussing creator/non-creator. Everything I said is completely separate from whether or not the creator is God or not. It seems like most on here, yourself included, are too sensitive to discuss religion and God in an adult fashion.

Keep taking those pop shots at me, unlike you, it doesn't bother me in the least.

 

[volinbham]

Again, ill-informed crap. We've moved on from the God discussion and are discussing creator/non-creator. Everything I said is completely separate from whether or not the creator is God or not. It seems like most on here, yourself included, are too sensitive to discuss religion and God in an adult fashion.

Keep taking those pop shots at me, unlike you, it doesn't bother me in the least.

Not to speak for BPV but I think he's using a similar argument to mine. The 99% extinct argument seems to be tied to a specific (Genesis) view of creation. As I posted above - extinction is tangental at best to the notion of a creator hence why your "fact" that "alone" should debunk the notion of a creator is basically irrelevant.

 

[rjd970]

This statement is pure speculation. Who knows what a creator's intent, approach or limitations were? It seems you are reverting back to a specific religion's story of the creation to discredit the broader notion.

Ok, what if I were to theorize that the entire universe is a closed manifold consisting of a massive simulation run on an alien supercomputer, where the universal constants are inputs into the simulation, and the aliens exist outside the 4 dimensional realm of space and time we know. They've created it, inputed constants, and hit "run" to see what happens.

This fits into everything you have said here. Does it sound reasonable? What would it take to prove this? Even better, what would it take to disprove this?

Asking such questions is fine but not having the answers isn't proof that there wasn't a creator. You suggest I'm using lack of evidence to prove existence (which I'm not). Here you appear to be using the inability to conceive of a creator's motives to prove there couldn't have been one

Again, what evidence is there of a creator? Until you bring it to the table, all you have is non-answers to support your claim, and stating a non-falsifiable claim. This very post does this. Are you not saying the inability to conceive of a creator's motives suggests that there actually is one? What is the evidence that there is motivation behind any of this? Because there is evidence against motivation, unless it is creating pure randomness and lack of care.

Pure opinion.

That's why I have said from the start this is all a matter of opinion at the end of the day.

 

[rjd970]

Not to speak for BPV but I think he's using a similar argument to mine. The 99% extinct argument seems to be tied to a specific (Genesis) view of creation. As I posted above - extinction is tangental at best to the notion of a creator hence why your "fact" that "alone" should debunk the notion of a creator is basically irrelevant.

It's not. Like the rest of that post, it was to suggest complete randomness and lack of care for anything, much less anykind of plan behind it. If the human race were to go extinct tomorrow, the universe would keep on trucking the way it is, just fine without us.

 

[volinbham]

Ok, what if I were to theorize that the entire universe is a closed manifold consisting of a massive simulation run on an alien supercomputer, where the universal constants are inputs into the simulation, and the aliens exist outside the 4 dimensional realm of space and time we know. They've created it, inputed constants, and hit "run" to see what happens.

This fits into everything you have said here. Does it sound reasonable? What would it take to prove this? Even better, what would it take to disprove this?

It is possible and a common example used in epistemology. It doesn't jibe with the stories and beliefs flowing through virtually all of human kind since the dawn of time.

Again, what evidence is there of a creator? Until you bring it to the table, all you have is non-answers to support your claim, and stating a non-falsifiable claim.

The largest piece of evidence I have is the history of man since the dawn of time which includes almost an instinctual spiritual tie to a greater power. Complexity, unexplained phenomena, spiritual power, etc. are other concepts that suggest there might be something greater - something supranatural.

The issue of verification or falsifiability is an epistemological discussion. This is western view of knowledge I've been discussing. It is a a creation of man. It is self defining. It isn't knowledge if it doesn't fit the rules of some type of empirical verification or is based on "reason". While this is certainly a useful approach to work within the world around us, I'm not convinced it has the capacity to explain all. Accordingly, it rules out that which doesn't fit the system and is self-defining. Put another way, it assumes that Man has created a system for uncovering knowledge that is complete. I just don't buy it.


This very post does this. Are you not saying the inability to conceive of a creator's motives suggests that there actually is one?

No. I'm saying that using a fact like 99% extinction is entirely tied to a specific conception of a creator. If the creator doesn't fit that definition, the fact is meaningless.


What is the evidence that there is motivation behind any of this? Because there is evidence against motivation, unless it is creating pure randomness and lack of care.

I disagree. While I hesitate to constrain the motivations of a creator to human motivations, we as humans do this type of thing all the time. Heck, I put ants into a jar and tried to get them to fight. What was my motivation? I wanted to see what would happen.

I also disagree with the pure randomness statement. The randomness isn't pure. Some is quite predictable hence not random. Matter has properties and the interaction of those properties results in any number of outcomes. The properties are violated at times but if everything was purely random we could predict nothing.



That's why I have said from the start this is all a matter of opinion at the end of the day.

If it is truly opinion then you really open the door to Intelligent Design as curriculum material.

 

[volinbham]

It's not. Like the rest of that post, it was to suggest complete randomness and lack of care for anything, much less anykind of plan behind it. If the human race were to go extinct tomorrow, the universe would keep on trucking the way it is, just fine without us.

Again, I don't see this as compelling evidence against a creator or a plan. For the evidence to have the power you claim, it relies on many assumptions about what a creator was trying to do. Was the human race the end goal? Why would it be? Was the creator especially found of the Dodo bird? Why would he/it be? Is Earth the only focus of the creator? I think you know my answer.

Put another way, the existence of a creator in no way depends on me understand his/its motivations.

 

[rjd970]

It is possible and a common example used in epistemology. It doesn't jibe with the stories and beliefs flowing through virtually all of human kind since the dawn of time.

So? If we want to separate this from a debate about a specific creator, what does the history of mankind have to do with anything? The point still stands, the alien supercomputer example is perfectly reasonable given the purview you are using to come to your conclusion. I doubt you are given it equal consideration though.

The largest piece of evidence I have is the history of man since the dawn of time which includes almost an instinctual spiritual tie to a greater power. Complexity, unexplained phenomena, spiritual power, etc. are other concepts that suggest there might be something greater - something supranatural.

Fair enough. Although not sure how the history of man since the dawn of time is evidence of anything....especially considering you don't think we are necessarily the most important creation of a creator.

And I still think the complexity stuff, at least in biological terms, can be readily explained. And the unexplained phenomenon is no different than anything else throughout history that we couldn't (and thought we never would be able to) explain, assigned supernatural explainations to, but have since come to definitive conclusions on. I just don't see it as compelling as you make it out to be.

Accordingly, it rules out that which doesn't fit the system and is self-defining. Put another way, it assumes that Man has created a system for uncovering knowledge that is complete. I just don't buy it.

I don't think anybody that properly understands empirical research will tell you it is the end all, complete system for uncovering knowledge. But it has worked for far longer than anything else, and is far more useful. Nevertheless, this doesn't begin to suggest that the philosophical claims you are suggesting are any better.

No. I'm saying that using a fact like 99% extinction is entirely tied to a specific conception of a creator. If the creator doesn't fit that definition, the fact is meaningless

And I say it isn't, it only shows how capricious and irrelevant nature, or your creator, or whatever...really believes life is. You or me are no more important than the ants you put in a jar, or a distant star that dies out. That was my point.

Besides, you're the one on here saying the history of mankind's notion of a creator is some sort of evidence for their being one. If that isn't tying a specific conception of a creator to what your saying, I don't know what is.

If it is truly opinion then you really open the door to Intelligent Design as curriculum material.

As an alternative to evolution, it isn't a matter of opinion and has no business in a science class. As a strictly philosophical claim to the beginings of the universe, sure, teach it in a philosophy or theology class all you want. Without evidence or falsifiability, it has no place in empirical research or teaching.

 

[KB5252]

So? If we want to separate this from a debate about a specific creator, what does the history of mankind have to do with anything? The point still stands, the alien supercomputer example is perfectly reasonable given the purview you are using to come to your conclusion. I doubt you are given it equal consideration though.



Fair enough. Although not sure how the history of man since the dawn of time is evidence of anything....especially considering you don't think we are necessarily the most important creation of a creator.

And I still think the complexity stuff, at least in biological terms, can be readily explained. And the unexplained phenomenon is no different than anything else throughout history that we couldn't (and thought we never would be able to) explain, assigned supernatural explainations to, but have since come to definitive conclusions on. I just don't see it as compelling as you make it out to be.



I don't think anybody that properly understands empirical research will tell you it is the end all, complete system for uncovering knowledge. But it has worked for far longer than anything else, and is far more useful. Nevertheless, this doesn't begin to suggest that the philosophical claims you are suggesting are any better.



And I say it isn't, it only shows how capricious and irrelevant nature, or your creator, or whatever...really believes life is. You or me are no more important than the ants you put in a jar, or a distant star that dies out. That was my point.

Besides, you're the one on here saying the history of mankind's notion of a creator is some sort of evidence for their being one. If that isn't tying a specific conception of a creator to what your saying, I don't know what is.



As an alternative to evolution, it isn't a matter of opinion and has no business in a science class. As a strictly philosophical claim to the beginings of the universe, sure, teach it in a philosophy or theology class all you want. Without evidence or falsifiability, it has no place in empirical research or teaching.

Someone watched "The Matrix" last night!

 

[volinbham]

So? If we want to separate this from a debate about a specific creator, what does the history of mankind have to do with anything? The point still stands, the alien supercomputer example is perfectly reasonable given the purview you are using to come to your conclusion. I doubt you are given it equal consideration though.

The history of man has much to do with it since it is through that lense we are trying to find an explanation. If there were a continual shared belief and experience of the alien theory I would put more consideration there.

Fair enough. Although not sure how the history of man since the dawn of time is evidence of anything....especially considering you don't think we are necessarily the most important creation of a creator.

It is important because as humans we are trying to explain where we come from. It is OUR desire to explain and that doesn't require that a creator have a special fondness for us.

And I still think the complexity stuff, at least in biological terms, can be readily explained. And the unexplained phenomenon is no different than anything else throughout history that we couldn't (and thought we never would be able to) explain, assigned supernatural explainations to, but have since come to definitive conclusions on. I just don't see it as compelling as you make it out to be.

I don't think anybody that properly understands empirical research will tell you it is the end all, complete system for uncovering knowledge. But it has worked for far longer than anything else, and is far more useful. Nevertheless, this doesn't begin to suggest that the philosophical claims you are suggesting are any better.

I've never claimed my view is better. I am saying that your critique relies on taking the empirical or "reason" view as the base line assumption for explaining creation. I'm simply suggesting I think that is an overly burdensome requirement and it prevents any acknowledgement that things can exist outside our ability to verify or falsify them.

Put another way, your "faith" is in the explanatory power of verification and falsification. I don't share your faith.



And I say it isn't, it only shows how capricious and irrelevant nature, or your creator, or whatever...really believes life is. You or me are no more important than the ants you put in a jar, or a distant star that dies out. That was my point.

Whether we matter or not is not a necessary precondition for the existence of a creator. Accordingly claiming evidence that we must not matter is largely irrelevant in refuting one's existence.

Besides, you're the one on here saying the history of mankind's notion of a creator is some sort of evidence for their being one. If that isn't tying a specific conception of a creator to what your saying, I don't know what is.

I'm saying that the common thread running man's existence provides an indication that maybe something's going on here. What that "something" is, I don't know. Suffice it to say, I look at that piece of evidence as an indication that human's are "in tune" with something supranatural whatever that maybe.

As an alternative to evolution, it isn't a matter of opinion and has no business in a science class. As a strictly philosophical claim to the beginings of the universe, sure, teach it in a philosophy or theology class all you want. Without evidence or falsifiability, it has no place in empirical research or teaching.

As I've said, I'm not an ID proponent as Science class material.

 

[gsvol]

What about this post from me there little buddy...the one you've so conveniantly ignored?

OWB asked first, I gave him an answer chief

You used the FBI as your 'source' on the 98% claim you made....and I showed you that not only does the FBI not substantiate that claim they refute it...

The FBI made such a report, Clinton rejected it and had the FBI rewrite their report using different, more homosexual friendly criteria.

I'll give you this...you are a good dancer....

Unfortunately for you I'm not overwhlemed by the length of your posts and I'm able to still stick to the point that is you made an outragish claim which has been thrown back in your face....

Why does the left bear the opprobrium of advocating for the decriminalization of pederasty??

Ginsberg the Clinton appointed ACLU lawyer advocates for instance the lowering of the age of consent to age 12.

Until you can explain why your '98%' claim was so egregiously wrong then I'm not interested in any of this other song and dance you've got

Sheesh, you'd think I ran into the Barney Frank anti-defamation league.

You seem so passionately involved in the issue that you mispelled 'conveniantly', 'overwhlemed' and 'outragish'.

 

[thunder5]

Sheesh, you'd think I ran into the Barney Frank anti-defamation league.

You seem so passionately involved in the issue that you mispelled 'conveniantly', 'overwhlemed' and 'outragish'.

There you go dancing again...I apologize for not performing a spell check...you're still dodging the issue that I have with you...

You stated something as a fact...but not only was it not a fact the exact opposite (that the FBI refutes the 98% stat you mentioned) was a fact...

At issue here is ignorance and credibility...and all the petty insults and insinuations you can throw out won't change that you passionately embrace the former and...based on the way about 98% of the people in this forum respond to you...have very little of the latter

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Any one provide cliff notes for this conversation?