Facebook_I Am An Atheist

boob_lust

This was posted on I am an Atheist, implying that if we lust after that picture we should poke out our eye. Now it had many sexist replies and feminists responses and they got into a discussion of how the Bible should be interpreted literally. So I decided to step in and pretty much everyone else dropped out except the facebook page owners.

Larry Marshall Again a misinterpretation of Old Testament Law: this comparison is flawed. First, it fails to realize that the Old Testament Law is largely made up of case law—that is, it presents examples, but gives some leeway for judges to decide individual cases. The Mishnah (codification of oral traditions) reveals the flexibility that the Jews understood the Law to have (see for example the discussion on Deut. 22:13–21 in this answer to a philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil. http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil ). For instance, they didn’t understand ‘eye for eye’ to mandate literally gouging out eyes and knocking out teeth—they instead understood it to teach the general principle of proportional punishment. It was actually a limitation of private vendettas, so a huge advance over other law codes that might command ‘life for eye’.

 

I am an Atheist Why would they have left out the fine print? Must be because the had to, once again, try to cover a mistake they made when creating the story.

I am an Atheist But they did understand it to mean if you kill, you die. They went as far as to remove a hand from a thief, and stone or burn an enemy of their god, so it utterly pointless to try to reinterpret the meaning, so long after man committed the act. *GRR*

I am an Atheist “Proportional punishment” would by relieving a thief of his own property, not removing a hand, and exactly how does the spoken word, justify a tortuous death, seem to me the misinterpretation is on your part. Clearly where it states “god said” ,it was not for man to question. Read Judges, where god bestow tragic circumstance until men were killed to appease god.

I am an Atheist In fact, given the masogynistic nature of that era of man, it would probably be more accurately interpreted to mean, if man looks at a womans body with lust, then man should hack off all of the body parts that aroused him….hmmm?

Larry Marshall IS God a homicidal maniac that routinely orders killing, and for arbitrary reasons. In fact, God’s orders for killing are comparatively rare in the Old Testament, and non-existent in the New. But one fundamental principle is overlooked by the atheists: God as the Creator of life has the right to take it. Humans are not, therefore can take life only if delegated this duty by the One who owns life. Failure to understand the Creator/Creature distinction underlies a lot of atheistic fallacies, so it’s important for Christians to understand it. Furthermore God has sentenced all of us to death, first as descendants of Adam (see Romans 5:12 21: Paul’s view of literal Adam), and secondly because we deserve it for our sin, and He even took on human nature to suffer this penalty on our behalf. There are two relevant scenarios here: the first is in the course of the conquest of the holy land where they were commanded to go into the land and kill the inhabitants. But the Bible teaches that the people had lost their right to the land because of centuries of sin (remember, he told Abraham that the people in the land hadn’t committed enough sin to be driven out—‘the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete’ (Genesis 15:16)). Remember that Israel itself was exiled when the nation failed to keep the covenant God made with them as a condition for their inhabiting the land. The second case is laws where the death penalty is applied. The case of a woman showing insufficient evidence of virginity is brought out as if every woman who was even suspected was stoned. But again, this is the most severe allowable punishment—the wronged husband would have the right to accept lesser punishments. And he would be seriously shamed and face economic consequences if he were proved to be dishonest. Furthermore, the rabbinic commentary on the law shows that if there were any plausible reason why the woman would not show evidence of virginity even though she was innocent, they accepted that.

I am an Atheist false premise Larry, You can claim god as the creator, but first that has to be proven.

Larry Marshall I have no problem proving it by reading and understanding the Word of God or believing it on faith- you choose to have the doubts.

I am an Atheist typical, the bible is not proof of itself, if thats all it took, then Dumbledore, Merlin, and a whole slew of characters are real. Superman, Jack and Rose…..you have nothi.g to support what you try to pawn off as fact.*GRR*

I am an Atheist And faith is not proof. Your word is not authority, If you have faith in the incredible tales of ancient man, you are not knowledgeable, you are gullible. Want to by some beachfront property in Arizona? It’s not right now, but have faith and it will be when that great quake drop California into the ocean.

Larry I already own some just north of Yuma- bought it when I lived in Phoenix, thought I should buy when that song came out before the prices went up. J

All I can offer is faith for my proof. However, that is more than you can offer for any type of “alternate reality” to explain our universe and the reason for humans and all other living species (or as we like to call them “living kinds”). The “big bang theory” is so full of holes and manufactured concepts to make both sides of the equations used to explain them equal, evolutionary biology has finally granted that the ingredients for a “primordial soup” on earth could not have happened but wait for it…… it must have been several giant asteroids that hit Mars in just the right spot to send a bunch of meteorites into the earth’s atmosphere and they has just enough boron and molybdenum to stir up “life” as we know it.

It is all speculation, with some science backing up some theorems. The purpose of science is to explore and reproduce experiments. Many of the experiments cannot be reproduced-because we can’t go back in time. And there are many, many valid criticisms of published “science” that the “establishment” refuses to answer.

We will never see eye to eye, but I certainly enjoy the discussions.

I am an Atheist That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. Your faith is more proof than the scientific community has ever offered? And of course the scientific explanation for the existence of everything is full of holes; the universe is an advanced place, not likely within our total grasp and comprehension, and, this is the biggest reason: WE DON’T FILL IN THE HOLES WITH HORSESHIT. We have theories, and we keep the ones that make sense and hold up, and we test and observe, test and observe, and trim the fat where old theories don’t hold up. We neglected Einstein’s work for decades. Then when his equations came popping out of someone else’s work, we brought it back for consideration. And aside from that, there’s enough struggle and debate within the scientific community that it’s just not even worth it to try and argue with anyone outside of it. – KZL

I am an Atheist What are those other hundreds of billions of stars, planets, and satellites? Failed attempts…decorations, satan’s trickery? If there was a god, why would he be interested in this, degenerate infested planet? What is intelligent about designing such an imperfect world? You feel that your knowledge and understanding of scripture qualifies you to refute a theory of creation, with an untestable, rationally impossible, concept on how life came to be, by merely stating the mysterious ways of some god. Tell me why those ways are allowed to go unquestioned, but as the universe reveals itself one atom at a time, it’s unconscionable to wait for a true answer? There is no reason, even with mans limited knowledge, to give credit to an entity with not one sigle shred of tangible proof. *GRR*

I am an Atheist Do you believe that governments create deadly viruses like AIDS, HIV, or eboli as weapons? Those viruses are living organisms….you got iy , life created by man, or mutated evolution of an existing cell. Is it possible for matter to tranform to anti matter…or vise versa? Whet about all the stellar anomalies that we are just now discovering? telescopes that found bursts of extreme energy from collapsing stars, thousands of light years away. Higgs Boson, quarks, and black holes? No we don’t have all the answers…yet, but we won’t stop until we do.

I am an Atheist DT 4:19 Be careful when you look at the stars and planets not to be enticed into worshipping them. DT 13:2-5 Anyone who causes someone to turn to another god must be put to death. DT 13:6-10 A man is required to slay his friends and members of his own family who are guilty of worshipping another god. DT 17:12 A man who shows contempt for a judge or priest must be put to death. Now, “required to” and “must be” don’t sound too discretionary to me. And this misinterpretation of “Old Teatament” law….ummm, what is the name of the first book of the New Testament?….wait, don’t tell me….oh yeah it’s Matthew, and since the book is named for its alleged author, and disciple (student) of the alleged christ, please tell me why you’re better qualified to interpret such law with greater accuracy?

 

I apologize for the length of time in responding, but we needed to go to town yesterday and since it is 50 miles away, we generally make it an entire day’s trip to accomplish as many things as we can. And yesterday, I was preparing for a granddaughters eighth birthday.

As expected you “threw a bunch of elephants” at me. A whole lot of nothing but generalities with very few specifics. So I had to think (a refreshingly delightful exercise) about how best to respond. I want to address this statement made by you first “And of course the scientific explanation for the existence of everything is full of holes; the universe is an advanced place, not likely within our total grasp and comprehension, and, this is the biggest reason: WE DON’T FILL IN THE HOLES WITH HORSESHIT.” In my 1970 sophomore college philosophy class we were tasked with the question of creating a general theorem that would with stand the test of time. Out of 25 students, I was the only one who received an “A”. I must say that every time I have applied this theorem, it has proven itself true. I call it the Universal Equine Equation, which simply stated is: “At any one time on the face of the earth, there are more horses asses than horses.” Thank you for the continued affirmation of my theorem.

Ok, KZL, I’ll call you Gomer and GRR you are Goober, both graduates of Mayberry High School (I hope). So Gomer, you’ve already admitted that understanding the universe is not likely possible with your grasp of the subject matter and apparent comprehension capabilities. I believe also that you are inferring that is the case with humankind in general. I won’t get into a discussion of the travesty of our educational system that constitutes the liberalized schools of today, but instead I want to make an allegory and apply that to your lack of debatable items.

I liken your problem, Gomer, to the growth of Microsoft and its flagship products Windows and Office (everyone knows they are registered trademarks of that company and I’m not going to put © and ® everyplace the idiot lawyers want it). Now, Gomer, I need to digress a moment to provide some background information on me. My first experience with computers was in 1968 when I got a change to see the mainframe a Phoenix Community College. It took up a building of 3000 sq. ft. It ran off of 19 inch tape wheels and was of all things built from vacuum tubes. You communicated instructions to it by using punch cards. My first job was to test the 5,000 tubes once week for amperage, wattage and voltage. A 5% fluctuation could cause a difference in calculations. I have since become a software developer and then a Senior System Architect working on major programs for the health insurance, medical, oil and telecommunications industries. Therefore, I know a little about programming- I will readily admit I am not the best there is, but you would be hard put to find someone better.

Ok, Gomer, I haven’t lost you yet have I? When Microsoft, began to dominate the marketplace with both Office and Windows 3.11 (which was a shame because OS2 was a far better operating system- but IBM just didn’t know how to market to individuals). Anything that complex was bound to experience some glitches, design flaws, “bugs”. Most developers like myself constantly admonished Microsoft to fix the small problems instead of incorporating new features- make the base solid and then add features. As it was they decided to “patch” problems and after years of “featureitis” and patches it got to the point where they were selling “bloatware” and not software. As a software developer myself, I always had to resist adding features to my programs that I knew I could do and would give the customer a competitive advantage over others just because I could do it. That is what Microsoft did- they ran ahead of their customers and offered them features that they had no use for. Moreover, just about every time something was added, it broke something that barely worked in the past because it was patched together earlier when it failed due to another feature being added, which only 10% of the people might ever use 10% of the time.

Now, Gomer how does the above apply to your stated premise that “the universe is an advanced place, not likely within our total grasp and comprehension”? Here comes the allegory- I’ll define the term for you – a symbolic representation of something. The “Big Bang Theory” is similar to Windows and evolution is similar to Office –having been built on the foundation of it. I have been trying to get some students of whatever studies to do a Master’s thesis on what came first the idea or the science. Did the Buck Rogers Saturday matinee serials or comic books introduce the concepts of “black hole”, “anti-matter”, “worm hole”, phasers, etc. before these terms showed up in scientific literature?

So we get wonderful ‘scientific’ concepts such as: The boundary of a black hole, where light from outside goes into orbit, or light rays from inside the black hole just fail to escape, is called an event horizon. It represents the point of no return around a black hole. The reason for this name is that no event can ever get out of this area, as there is no means of communicating the occurrence of any events. Thus whatever happens within a black hole cannot be known by an observer from outside and , hence cannot be known by science. This phenomenon has been called ‘cosmic censorship’.

Convenient let’s add it to the equation.

The idea of additional spatial dimensions comes from string theory, the only self-consistent quantum theory of gravity so far. It turns out that for a consistent description of gravity, one needs more than 3+1 dimensions, and the world around us could have up to 11 spatial dimensions! These extra spatial dimensions, if they really exist, are thought to be curled-up, or “compactified”. According to string theory then, we live in a universe where our three familiar dimensions of space are “flat”, but there are additional dimensions which are curled-up very tightly so that they have an extremely small radius: 10-30 cm or less.

That seems to be pretty damn small to me, but I can imagine everything and everyone I know all curled up in such a small area and all doing the same thing we are doing in our dimension but doing it different!

Let’s add that to the equation – but I’m not sure if it should go on the right or the left of the equal sign. Who cares just as long as it balances- right!

The standard cosmological paradigm is of a universe in which ordinary matter comprises only about 10%, and the other 90% is in non-baryonic forms. The latter may include the elusive axion, WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles) or other unknown particles, which allegedly don’t interact with light. Some enterprising Princeton astrophysicists have attempted to solve this problem by proposing particles as big as galaxies to explain lack of dwarf galaxy formation. The hypothetical particles have a density of the order 10–24 of that of an electron and wave-functions of the order of 3,000 light-years! They interact only with gravity and are almost impossible to detect. The only reason these particles are needed, it seems, is to explain why dwarf galaxies are far rarer than big bang theory predicts. As theory goes, CDM was introduced to get matter to form galaxies early in the universe’s history, but that created another problem—computer simulations predicted that a huge number of dwarf galaxies would have formed but these are undetected. Hence the need for the huge hypothetical particles that ‘would form giant globs of “fuzzy” cold dark matter’

 

Ok, I like fuzzy things, but I’m not so sure about them being cold and dark. Since I’m right handed, I’ll add them to the left side of the equation. I like the idea that these other things are “almost impossible” to detect- that helps make everything equal even if they are not.

Now Gomer, I have to say that what the scientists need to do is throw out the existing equations and go back to look at the basics. Just like “bloatware” (took awhile but there is the analogy of the allegory) every time they “discover” something and try to factor it into the universal equation of the origins of us all, they just compound the original mistake and therefore have to make up, manufacture, or create something and give it some kind of value so that the equations on both sides of the equal sign match.

Promoters of the idea that people, penguins and pomegranates share a common ancestor are fond of claiming that contrary voices are ‘antiscience, but we prefer to use science for the purpose it was designed- to test hypothesis and if we can conceive of a flaw, or an alternate interpretation instead of being dismissed Gomer, it needs to be examined and either reapproved or discredited.

So Gomer I’ll end your discussion with this: The natural laws under which scientists work are adequate for explaining how the world functions, but are inadequate to explain its origin, just as the tools which service an automobile are inadequate for its manufacture. I see all these scientists vying to be able to find and to get their idea proved or their concept which pulls all of these theories into a cohesive whole. They would win the accolades of their fellow ‘scientists’ and achieve almost a ‘god’ like stature in that community.

Ok, Goober your turn and we will go with another allegory from my past. As a freshman at Arizona State University excited by the newfound freedom of the “Summer of love”. I was burning my draft card, the ladies were burning their bras and I certainly wanted to be able to communicate with them this is the age of feminism and the feminazis. So I decided to take a class called Olde English – it appears that a lot of these young ladies were signing up for. The teacher was a gentleman by the name of Mr. McPhee red headed butch haircut, were add a hair on his arms and so many freckles on him you could hardly see his face. The first assignment was to read Chaucer’s Canterbury tales from start to finish. Pretty disappointed with that because we had read part of it and my high school senior English class.

It was pretty drab and boring, and then Mr. McPhee got up and read it in the original old English. That was somewhat more entertaining it went together better had I better rhythm due to the meter of the poetry and the class got quite a bit of giggles out of him reading it. The next class day he explained to us what a lot of the metaphors and idioms and similes from that period of time meant. Then he read it to us again and what a world of difference it was. Chaucer’s Canterbury tales was vulgar and scandalous and an amazing delight to read once you knew the ins and outs of the language of that period.

Now Goober, I have never said I was better qualified to interpret the language of the Bible then the author of each book was. Instead, I am relying upon the hundreds if not thousands of archaeologists, and linguists, including the study of evolutionary linguistics, which investigates into questions related to the origins and growth of languages; historical linguistics, which explores language change; sociolinguistics, which looks at the relation between linguistic variation and social structures; psycholinguistics, which explores the representation and function of language in the mind. These folks are continually digging up the relics of the past and analyzing the words imprinted, painted or scored upon shards of pottery or shreds of papyrus.

These folks have the wherewithal to examine each and every letter of the alphabets of these ancient languages and determine of the nuances of the combinations of letters and words and phrases. I trust them to determine whether a new finding changes the meaning of a word or a phrase and they pass that knowledge on to the thousands of seminary theologians who then review all known occurrences of it within the known Bible. If changes in the words need to be made than the various editions of the Bible’s are upgraded.

I would never presume to quote a passage from the Bible and tell you that that was the correct way of interpreting it, unlike you. When I write that this is how these Bible verses can be interpreted, it is based upon the tens of thousands of hours of work from the hundreds if not thousands of professionals that know far more about that subject than I do.

So Goober to quote you: “Please tell me why you’re better qualified to interpret such law with greater accuracy”. Is it because you have a “godlike” complex?

I am an Atheist so by comparison to Chaucer, the bible is a work of fiction also? But I suppose since it would have been possible to have known Chaucer through some living breathing person, those tales are undeniably factual? In all that scientific knowledge, there is no inference to that being the end of the search, no reference to “we’ll just say, this is unexplainable, so we’ll stop looking, and just call it magic”, nope not once. And for that, it does more to explain an alternate hypothesis to creation than your faith in a god. In the future, you may want to refrain from proving the other side.

I am an Atheist Why now with the insults? Does it hurt when you get caught in your own garbage? When your argument backfires because it’s off? You’ve graduated froma conceit in yourself view, to the possibility that you’re just rambling. Let me enlighten you on what I’ve noticed. Every time you come keyboard crusading, when your argument fails, you disappeare, then come back days later with a new sob story. Nobody cares why you left, we were actually ok with it. As for Gomer and Goober, you have degrees from a reputable university? From past encounters, I think you’ve eaten far too much peyote and your lost, you claim the bible is your proof of god, and then claim you didn’t. But honestly, you’ve been granted a wide berth here, for comic relief mostly, You’ve repeatedly shown what a religitard crapationist you are, spouting your two cent sermons with some two dollar decorations (that usually have less credible source than Fox news), and when that fails, resort to comparing apples to Volkswagens, I can only speak for myself when I say you bore and annoy me at the same time. With that, I’m going to confer with my colleagues to determine my next course of action, but you’re more than welcome to take your own measures to avoid your future indignance * GRR*

I am an Atheist Yes, my responses are out of order, but I become more befuddled with the more I read. Your allegory for MS & Word….apples and Volkswagens, if you claim mans logic does not apply to god (he can’t be held to human standard being he is all), then you claim that error is a non possibility, so there is no precievable margin for error…tbc.

I am an Atheist Fuck it, I was going to finish but your arrogance isn’t worth my time, you came arguing the existence of god, lost, now change it up to speculative creation hypotheses, with less evidence than the Loch Ness Monster, and I’m not about to sit here and debate myself, because your big headed,”I am the smartest man alive” bullshit will send you in some other direction ,until you want me to argue your shoe size, so youyou can maybe show us wrong about something. Read fast, and say goodbye.

Four different answers scattered all over the horizon. So lets just do 1 through 4

  • Once again you’ve managed to take out of context just what is necessary to make you feel good about your answer. If you were to read Canterbury Tales for your senior English class you could probably get the Cliff Notes and pass the test. But to truly understand what was happening in 14th century England you would need to study that time frame to understand the mores of the time. Then you would not only just pass the test, you would, my gosh, have a greater understanding. If you just pick out bible verses to prove your point, then you get your halos for verse memorization in Bible Study. But if you study the syntax of the language, the cultural in which it was written, then, by gosh, once again you will have a greater understanding and won’t make such foolish mistakes in interpreting scripture.
  • Why not insults now. You have a FaceBook page where you get to post anything you want and then like lemmings to the cliff your followers agree with you sometimes getting more ridiculous and vulgar than you do. Anybody who offers a contrary idea, or who has the courage and gumption to question you gets insulted. I come and go as I please. I post to threads that catch my attention because they are so blatantly biased or off based knowing full well that I will not change anybody’s mind.   But they need to know that there is valid arguments against what they are so blindly following. I don’t have all the time in the world to spend watching your pages so, yes it is a hit or miss proposition. I remember it is your opinion that my argument has failed- not mine or that of my friends who follow my debate and conversations with you. Degrees yes. BS in Psychology from Texas Tech University PB, Masters in Computer Science from UTPB, and Masters in Bio-Mechanics from Texas Tech Health Service Center in Lubbock. Also I have been tested at age 16, 24 and 35 on all of the standard tests and have consistently stored in the 96th In other words, out of everybody else who has every taken these tests I have scored higher than 96% of them. What, may I ask, is your particular education qualifications. I may bore and annoy you but that is understandable- I am pointing out things that disagree with you. I am still waiting for a distinct refutation of anything I have said instead of general asides and put downs. You have consistently chosen not to engage in any form of substantial debate over any topic or subject matter prefer to dismiss with canned remarks any challenge to your mantra that I bring up. As far as the peyote goes, it was to rancid to eat, So I used it as a suppository. Fascinating, I sat outside the Hayden Library at Arizona State University and every single person that walked by was naked!!! What an experience that was.
  • Well, I can’t possible imagine how you got the analogy between Windows and Office wrong- well yes I can but to elaborate on it would be useless. Windows is like the “Big Bang Theory” made sense when first proposed but as it grew and grew and grew and grew it began to trip over itself and they had to make up imaginary “thingies” to make the formulas work. Office is like evolution – it’s foundation is a subset of Windows. That is why it always had an advantage over the competitors- they just didn’t have those hooks into the foundation that Office had. But again as the foundation grew with imaginary hooks Office itself started to get bugs. They both needed to solidify their basic program before added more and more features. But didn’t and now we have to believe in “dark fuzzy matter” as big as the entire universe itself, particles so small they can never be detected or measured, timelines of evolution that do not fit the known data, mars rocks stimulated the earthly goo-to-you. Its easier to believe that Jesus walked on water and turned water into wine. Since he is the Creator of our universe he can cause instances that do not follow what we know as the “natural laws of science.”
  • My shoe size is 10 wide. I have no idea what other points you were trying make within your frustration but keep trying, maybe you will become coherent eventually.

So you blocked me congratulations, I am so glad that free speech suffers once again at the hands of bigots and idiots who generally pronounce they are not that way. “A page by Atheists for ANYONE. Post, Comment, Like, or Share. If you want to be a prick, belittle us, or troll, you will be blocked.” And” This page is for myself, other admins, and the public to post anything off of the internet about Atheism, Humanism, Secularism, Agnosticism, Free Thinking, Human Rights, and Equality for everyone and everything on this beautiful planet.” UNLESS you disagree with us and pose questions we can’t answer!

 

I am an Atheist wrote: “Mr Marshall, the fake facebook page just proves that you’ve only come here to promote yourself and your bias view of everything. you discussion is nothing more than self serving lies. when you get backed up on a point, you go well off subject, spout overblown and useless rhetoric, in the hopes of confusing someone for the sake of the last word. Your egotistical smarter than the whole world complex has swelled your own head into believing that you have some ultimate knowledge, when all you really have is 30 years of cut, copy, and paste. Come to the reality that you are not welcome here, not only by the admin, but many of the page members have tired of your hogwash. If you insist on fake profiles to return here, I’m sure fb can pull your IP address and ban you all together for harrassing pages (since I can tell you, this is not the only site you are banned from. goodbye! ”

I created a facebook page for my wife so that I could but a final statement on the topic under consideration. The entire conversation can be found on: http://intelligentdesign.blog.com/2013/09/10/182/ my blog. I then used the facebook page to reply to someone else who stated on another topic that there didn’t appear to be a well rounded discussion available.

Kevin Most people on my friends list seem totally tolerant of my antireligious musings aka they entirely ignore them lol

Hugo It’s funny how they use technology created by atheist to promote their religion. By the way, about 99% of their Christian posting do not relate to the bible. Christianity puts people down, they treat their followers like domesticated animals.

Mikel Kevin you’re lucky if only those posts are being ignored, all my friends hid me from their feed 😀 i wouldn’t even mind arguments with insults spewing back and forth, but most people would rather just hide what they don’t like than challenge it

Steve Regardless, the “true” word of a god should have made it more clear so misinterpretations of said “word” would & could not occur…don’t ya think?

And they deleted my posting from the thread and the next one was his posting above.

A couple of other interesting threads I had with them can be found at: http://intelligentdesign.blog.com/2013/08/03/posted-on-i-am-an-atheist-on-72513/   and http://intelligentdesign.blog.com/2013/08/12/666/

You are more than welcome to view them and determine for yourself who it is that goes off the subject when presented with factual information, who it is that thinks they know everything and wants only opinions that agree with them to be posted to feed their narcissistic egos. Of course, other members are upset by what I present- they are told to be by the admins because I don’t regurgitate their mantra. I am still posting on “Teabonics”, “Science Is Awesome”, “Evolution”, “Natural Selection” so I really do not know what other sites he claims I am banned from.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s