Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

No matter what the thread is about, Spendius, you will always derail the original topic and try to coerce people into talking about what you want to talk about which is almost always sociological in nature. I'm hesistant to use the phrase, but frankly, all your posts give me the impression that you're an attention-seeking whore.

I mean, it is very telling that you consistently have to hijack a thread instead of creating a new thread where people can discuss the issue you wish to discuss. What? You can't get people to talk to you, so you have to derail an already existing thread that had little to do with what you want to talk about?

And it's not as if you have cold hard facts to back up your statements. Your posts consist of unsourced opinions and wandering drivel that has no bearing on what you were originally talking about, apart from the fact that you think it does.

Perhaps, Spendius, you should reconsider yourself. If you consistently piss people off, maybe the problem is on your end.

I have every intention of pissing on your side of the argument as hard as I can go. I don't expect you to like it and I'm very surprised that you think I should agree with you so that I can be popular.

This is good-



Does that represent your hesitation capacities. It's a bit "quick squirt" in my opinion.

I was answering your charge that my posts are meaningless. Which is not in the thread title either. It's something you raised--not me. Am I then supposed to let it stand without reply. That's how the Comintern operated.

I notice that your rant contains no answers. Neither does TKO's. He has no understanding of events and their causes in those long gone days.

You're standing in no place to make demands spendius. I've replied in extreme depth to you useless posts, and you simply have browed over my responces.

You don't deserve this much charity.

Talking to a lost cause.
K
O

Then I suppose you suffer from incontinence, Spendi, because you haven't really been pissing really hard or very effectively.

First, you make a claim, then you don't prove it. You then link that claim to something else entirely with no real justification. You don't justify the link properly or prove that the link is real and not perceived.

When somebody calls you on this, you deny it. In fact, a good deal of your replies consist of denial which either means you change the goalposts a lot or your communication skills are absolutely atrocious. You don't cite sources. You don't prove anything.

Yet you expect us to shut up and believe you. Well, I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. You've given me no reason to believe that your viewpoint is anything more than the rantings of a maniac.

I've shown people who have never met you, posts that you have made, and they all consistently get the impression that you are an Internet Troll, that your posts have no meaning. It would seem that the problem is entirely on your end.

Otherwise known as a Troll. Something which should be expelled from A2K (based on A2K usage guidelines).

I suppose you mean by that ros that you are in disagreement with the mods. I could just as easy assert that you are a troll and should be expelled but I wouldn't dream of it.

I wouldn't insult the mods like you just did nor would I insult you with assertions.

I think that-



is plain ignorant.

As is-



which doesn't even mean anything to anybody who can read properly.

And he says-



followed by the revelation that he's been showing my posts to others who are presumably acquaintances. I've not been showing any posts to others. I would be embarrassed a lot of the time to do so. And I made no reference to what I had done. I only expressed an intention. I'm only in first gear.



Just assertions again. Give me an example and I'll try to explain what I might have assumed was obvious.



And he said that yesterday, or the day before, and when asked to provide an example he failed to do so contenting himself with simply repeating the assertion.



Again- provide an example and I'll try to explain.



That's just more of the same. I've cited more sources on this site that either of the last two posters have ever done. I was thanked for one yesterday by Chumly. And most of them are alpha sources. Not everybody on this site read like ros and Wolf do. It was me who put the US abortion stats up after someone enquired about them. Put your false allegation up to blatham or Lola or Georgebob or aidan or Clary or Flyfoy and see if they agree with it.



That's false as well.

And to put them together from the last three posts I'm asserted to be-

"derailing" topics, I "coerce" people (which is ridiculous), I'm a "whore", I'm a "troll", I should be "expelled" ( an attack on free speech and the mods), I'm supposed to be "incontinent" ( not incontinent mind you--just supposed to be), I'm in denial, I don't link properly (whatever that means), I move the goalposts, I invent links, I'm atrocious, I expect things which I don't, I rant, I'm a maniac, my posts have no meaning (unlinked) and I have a "problem" which is said to be at my end which is the only place it possibly can be, I'm useless, I don't deserve charity, I'm a lost cause, and I'm off topic.

Are you guys talking to anyone else like this. I think most psychiatrists would say you are all rattled.

It must be a way of avoiding answering this-



Lenin had no difficulty doing that.

And like good little apparatchicks of the Party you hunt in packs which our side studiously avoids.

This is prime example of spendi derailing the present thread. Yet he has the gall to turn the attention to others whove been on subject throughout.
Spendi, your comments just arent needed, sought, or, in most cases, responded to. That must get through your dense cranium. No?.

What you consider "on topic" would be politely listened to at a symposium , and then ignored by the moderators.

Ive noticed that your increasing your B&E on several threads where, once youve come in and dropped your scat, you dont add one bit to the conversation or debate.

While its true that a few good people will take up your posts, I dont believe that those people are frequenters of these specific threads. One of those you mentioned stated that he was aware that you shy away from the expository. To that I say, its just because spendi doesnt know a damn thing about the subject hes joined.

If its attention you crave, why do it here? Are you fearful that if you started a thread, noone would come? Maybe wed surprise you .
Im sure what we say wont even permeate your skull .

I submit that unless spendis posts are relevant (as Timber once asked), we just ignore him.Ros may be right about spendis violation of the TOS, however, if we keep responding, we nourish him.

It's meaningless in that it has nothing at all to do with the subject at hand, and is more to do with what you want to talk about. Not what everyone else wants to talk about. Not what this thread was designed to talk about, but what you want to talk about.

I have a suspicion that you are a bit like Jo Moore. True, you don't use bad news to bury anything, but you do use irrelevancies and a whole load of unnecessary and rather bizarre analogies to bury your point. In this case, I wouldn't be surprised if your sole purpose here was to derail the topic to distract people from the fact that RL can't defend his position at all.

Time and time again, RL is asked to defend Creationism and time and time again, we have to correct him on his misinformation. We need to "gang up" because not a single one of us has the proper expertise in all the areas that he questions.

FM is great with geology topics and topics regarding fossils.
I'm not that bad when it comes to biochemistry and molecular biology.
Some are better at physics. Other chemistry. And so forth.

When defending evolution it is necessary to do this, because no one man can know everything about evolution.

It's easy for a Creationist to criticise something they don't know anything about. It's much harder to defend something.

And it's hard not to respond to someone when they're being as obnoxious as you are, Spendi.

P.S. Is it just me or does anybody else notice that after Spendi comes along to a thread, it never seems to go back on topic?

fm wrote in a fit of attention seeking bluster-



First of all I did say that the proof of creation is the created. What you see with your eyes. And that the human race, in it's many manifestations, and particularly those which developed successful organisations, had, without an exception, applied its intuition in such a way that no sense of the universe having been created out of nothing, poofed as you like to say, has ever been posited before now. And further, that this intuition, is accepted today by a large majority of the people of free Western societies and is residually accepted by atheistic, communist populations as well.

To call that intuition wrong is to criticise the human condition and the peoples of all history and all significant places.

To ridicule it is tantamount to ridiculing not only the whole human race but also most of the population of the US including its President and, as far as I can tell, all past Presidents along with our Queen and all our previous Prime Ministers and to give succour to atheistic regimes such as that of the defunct Soviet empire or the present mess in N. Korea and in Cuba.

I am content to leave it to the viewers, including the mods, to decide whether such ridicule is attention seeking trollery on a grand scale.

The idea that the universe was poofed out of nothing, or out of an infinite mass contained in an infinitessimal point with a volume asymptoting with zero, and that there are places outside the universe with n-dimensions, confounds the intuition of the vast majority of human beings which vast majority seeks, rightly or wrongly, an explanation for existence and for origins and destinies.

There is no possibility of us ever knowing whether the universe, including the surroundings we have and the art and science bequeathed to us by the past, was created or just happened for no reason and with no cause.

It is a scientific principle that an effect, which we assuredly have before our perception, has a cause and no-one can say what it was, or ever will be able to. Those who say it was poofed out of nothing, usually in order to draw attention to themselves, like all minority viewpoints, have just as much need to prove their contention as have those who provide other explanations.

Strictly speaking, an approach you get out when it suits you, the thread is ended on that point. We don't know. There is no proof. There won't ever be. End of story--end of thread.

That view was presented by me. It is on topic. Because the "others" had no answer they diverted the thread by attacking me personally with insults, innuendos and libels. When I responded to those attacks I have been accused of being off topic, which is a regular feature of all the threads I have been on. My being singled out on that charge smacks of victimisation and victimisation for no other reason than that the "others" can't find an answer to what I've said but still wish to gob off and display their superficial knowledge hoping, presumably, we will be impressed by their erudition.

I rember you,fm, telling us about cleaning sea-food out of your bowthrusters on your boat on a Science and Mathematics thread apropos nothing relevant to the topic but simply in the service of letting us all know that you have a boat and go on trips in it. Did I tell you you were off topic. Not likely. I have manners. I don't go doing naff things of that nature. I'm tolerant.

To say that my posts are "not responded to" is false and you well know it is false. This page alone is proof of that. So why do you put up blatant falsehoods. Do you really have so little respect for viewers? That is much worse than being off topic. If everybody who went off topic was expelled, something I have never asked for about anybody else, this site would die off and you know that too.

The "others" have not been on topic throughout. That is another falsehood.



That applies to everyone on A2K. In what way are your posts "needed"? In what way are they "sought"? In what way are wande's posts about the goings on in Rio Rancho "needed" or "sought" when, thanks to me, we now know that there are 15,700 school boards in the US and that they are on the decline as centres of influence and might easily be thought of as mere opportunities for attention seekers to pose in or a means to scrap and resupply books?

If my contribution to the site are as you say how come you can say-



There are hundreds of posters I never read. How come you know this about mine if they are as useless as you say. You declare your false position yourself by that remark. Is B&E a euphemism for "scat"?



Have you got "scat" on the brain? Where's either conversation or debate in a word like that? You make it sound like the site is to be given over solely to those who post what you think is not scat. You're looking for a mirror. And I have been, and still am, engaged in a number of conversations and debates on A2K. Chumly thanked me yesterday and I have had many compliments from other posters. So there you have another falsehood.



Which is evidence for what? One person, after the insults and villifacations I have endured and without complaint. That is one of the very mildest things I have been accused of and it is an empty assertion to boot. And I have exposed the intolerance of a certain claque of posters quite sufficiently for any intelligent person to have got the picture.



A few!!!??? Don't be so silly. The viewers are not that gullible. And I understood that you don't do "belief".

If you do do belief then are not other people entitled to do belief as well or are we to take it that only your beliefs have validity.



Didn't "scat" cover that point.

Why can't viewers decide for themselves without having recourse to your guidance?



Why not? Everybody else does it don't they? Some post pictures of themselves. Victimisation again. I don't crave attention enough to be getting the car out to go and disrupt other people's meetings as you once said you did. And not enough either to suspend my critical faculties regarding the Amish just because I knew some of them.



I did start two threads. Both went wildly off topic in the blink of an eye and I never uttered one word of complaint. I prefer freewheelin'.



You having a head eh? Only me with a "skull". What you just said permeated my skull enough to know that your post is guilty of all the things you are whinging about. And anathema to A2K in that if we all adhered to your rules and regulations, strictly as you demand, like any half-way decent totalitarian should, A2K would vanish in a week.

You couldn't get your head around the complexities of Pareto's "circulating elites" concept if you tried.

Why don't you report me fm? After all, being the mainstay on the only active thread on Science and Mathematics and on some Trivia Games calls for drastic action I should think.

I missed this-



I consider it disrespectful to call upon a deceased person as a witness.

I also suggest that you ignore my posts and refrain from trying to make other people's minds up for them on the matter.

And "ros may be right" renders what follows meaningless.

Don't respond you silly "we"s.

Oops --Wolf already has done. I'm nourished.

So.. let's see..

Evolution says creatures don't have to have a purpose to exist.

I do have to wonder about a "creator" that creates people to just take up space without contributing anything. Not very intelligent about the design.

TKO wrote-



Sheesh. I'm accused of browing (?) over his responses which are asserted to be "in extreme depth".

He gave the briefest possible overview of

1-Developments in Science.

2-Ending of slavery.

3-Burning homosexuals.

4-Stem cell research.

5-Mid-Western Mega churches.

6-Middle-East conflicts.

A few lines each.

Anyone who has read a tenth of what I have on Nos 1, 2, and 6 will well understand my "browing".

parados wrote-



I suggest you think that through a bit my dear.

I did think it through. You might want to as well.

If you would care to discuss an "intelligent designer" that creates flawed systems that would be "on topic."

That's meaningless Wolf.

You ought to have respected Wilso's demand. Everything on the thread is off that topic. He's telling those who don't agree with him, ordering actually, not to bother. Then he asks us to tell him.

Why he would want those who think there is no proof of creationism to chip in I can't imagine. He needs you not. Neither does he want anybody who disagrees with him to say anything.

We are all off topic--"strictly speaking".

parados- How on earth can I say anything about a postulated "intelligent designer"? I can only discuss the function of the postulation and that's all anybody else can meaningfully discuss.



I understood that those who believe in an intelligent creator don't think people were created to "just take up space without contributing anything."

If they are right, then how does that have anything to do with how intelligent the design is? To them the design is just the design. They don't think that their definition of intelligence applies to a supernatural being.

You are still sat on the razor's edge. God or no God.

There's only one game as I keep telling you. The social consequences of either position. If you can't offer an explanation of the social consequences of the "no God" position you are bankrupt of ideas. I can but it wouldn't play on A2K. (Hey-that rhymes and scans).

I can also offer an explanation of the God position. A few actually.

You can argue God/No God until you are blue in the face for as long as time lasts and you'll be no further on however long it lasts.

Aldous Huxley did offer a sort of explanation but because it wouldn't play in his day, he chickened on a few things, not least conception, and even then James Joyce said he was obscene.

Hitler had no such qualms. We have to be careful with Hitler. We could end up reading that he sprinkled salt on his boiled egg before he dipped his "soldiers" in and, as a result of not wishing to be like Hitler in any way, stopped sprinking salt on our own boiled eggs.

Spendius- How on earth can I say anything about a postulated function of the postulation of an "intelligent designer"? I can only discuss the function of the postulation of a function of the postulation and that's all anybody else can meaningfully discuss.

I guess that means you want us to talk about you Spendi. I see no reason to do such just because you don't want to talk about the initial postulation. If you don't want to discuss the topic then go away.

That was never his intention and you could tell from the first post. Stop lying.



It was his intention from the very beginning. The title was blatantly a parody of the other thread, "Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution".



Thank you for misinterpreting his words, Spendi.



Only since you came along. Before that, we were pretty much on topic. RL came up with supposed evidence and we told him it wasn't, thus forcing him to find something else.



No, you can't offer the social consequences of a no God position. You can only offer a postulation based on your opinion and that is all I've ever seen you do.

Poor dodge Spedius. I gave examples, as asked. I gave examples despite pointing out how irrelavant it is to the discussion. Face it, religion has had a negitive net impact.

T
K
O

Wolf- I was only jesting about the term "strictly speaking".

Did you know Wolf that about half of the sperms in an ejaculate have no function in conception. They exist to fight rival sperms from other males.

What does that say about evolutionary mechanisms. It is why you only need one cock in a hen pen and the rest of the cocks go to the rotisserie.

Can you see those ladies on the US school boards promoting real biology.

The sperm bank is still in its early stages of development. I read that Linus Pauling was in big demand.

The guy who played the Devil at the Sabbats probably fulfilled a similar role.

Google "Sperm Banks". Have a shufti. Get up to speed.

That's one of the more obvious consequences of the no God position. You do think a woman has a right choose whatever she wants don't you? And I don't disapprove of that as much as I do her having her baby pulled out of her in pieces by forceps when it is supposed to be as safe and warm as evolution could get it.