Clip from Randy Olson’s film, Flock Of Dodos, about the fight between evolutionists and intelligent design (creationism) advocates. At the end of the clip, Michael Behe, one of the leaders of the movement to indoctrinate children with intelligent design theology admits that he doesn’t really care about the impact of his crusade because his own children don’t go to public school. What a guy. (via)
Funny: People who believe in Intelligent Design know they are not Creationists; and Creationists know they are not believers in Intelligent Design.
Yet, Oliver, you think they are the same. I wonder why that is?
Frank, you’re deluded if you think that they are significantly different. The relevant commonalities between them are as follows: Each depend on the existence of an unproven, powerful, supernatural being (e.g., God). Neither are scientific in nature, rendering instruction in either subject in public schools utterly wrong and stupid.
Can you think of a relevant difference between the two, for the purposes of teaching it to young students? I’d love to hear it.
As I illustrated to you before, Frank, the chief textbook touted by the ID movement was a creationism-oriented textbook. They simply removed “creationism” and put in “intelligent design”. ID is Creationism without saying “God” or “Allah” but it’s the same thing, which is a fine and legit belief to have but it is not science.
I don’t know anything about “the chief textbook touted by the ID movement”. What I DO know is that Intelligent Design suggests that the Universe and all that is in it could not be the result of a random event or events. It attributes no quality to the Designer besides consciousness and a design.
Creationism is GENERALLY used to describe the notion that the Biblical story of Genesis is scientifically correct.
Now, am I wrong, or are you saying that somehow what I have described as two different things, are really the same?
One’s clearly a generalised version of the other. Let’s not concentrate on this semantic bollocks any further because it’s a stupid diversionary tactic.
Frank, you’re not entirely wrong about that. However, I would argue that creationism is a subunit of intelligent design… creationists believe in intelligent design (after all, they have to, don’t they?), while IDers don’t necessarily have to believe in the creation myth, or the Christian god, etc. Although, to be fair, Christians are the driving force behind ID in this country.
The more important point, Frank, and the one you must have forgot to address… how are they different for the purposes of teaching it in science classrooms? Neither creationism nor intelligent design are scientific theories, both are untestable, both infer the existence of a supernatural being of which we know nothing via empirical data. Perhaps your failure to answer this concern is reflective of your inability to do so?
Mambochicken: Maybe it’s a reflection of my lack of a need to do so.
I once saw a very thorough presentation on the Shroud of Turin, for which there is much evidence that it is real. Many people who believe in it, don’t even know that the Church has never recognized is as real. The late Father Peter Rinaldi, who was recognized as the world’s leading expert on the Shroud, made this statement (I paraphrase): “It is not necessary that people believe because they know. That is easy. It is more important that they know because they believe.”
A few years ago, there were stories going around that there was a drug being made that would “test for alcoholism”, so you could be certain if you were an alcoholic. Most of us agreed that we wouldn’t want to take the test.
Finally, I believe that it was St. Thomas Aquinas who said, “Understanding follows faith, not faith understanding”.
I, personally, think that there is room in 12 years of education somewhere for the idea that there was purposeful creation, and that even if it is somehow, not scientifically provable (IMHO, neither is Darwinism) it is worthy of discussion to consider the necessity and value of purpose and ethics, and what role religion of any kind can play in a person’s life.
I detest the idea that ID’ers and Creatiionists are portrayed as foisting religion on an unsuspecting public (”the movement to indoctrinate children with intelligent design theology”), while the attack on religion camouflaged by the Darwinists continues apace.
You can throw quotes around all you like, but you’re not arguing substantively by doing so. I couldn’t care less what Peter Rinaldi or Aquinas said about anything in regards to belief, faith, and knowledge. It’s unimportant for the purposes of this discussion.
Frank, you continually attack those who disagree with you on religious matters (e.g., atheists) by saying that they are ignorant of theology, and that this ignorance precludes them from having a strong argument. You largely fail to back this claim. But here, you indicate a serious lack of understanding about Darwin’s theory while attempting to claim that creationism/ID is an important alternative to it. Additionally, that you believe that scientifically-literate people, who acknowledge the validity of Darwin’s theory, are attacking religion as an end-goal (as you seem to suggest by your equivocation) is laughable.
Here’s the deal… scientists believe data. The data suggest that Darwin’s theory is correct. This fact, to some, appears to contradict religious teachings; this fact is incidental to the equation, and not the end-goal. It’s not as though Darwin and other scientists are actively pushing an anti-religion stance. They recognize that the empirical data suggests a contradiction to religious thought.
On the other hand, you have the IDers approaching the same issue from the exact opposite direction. They believe that a God exists and is responsible for life on Earth, and then formulate a “theory” that supports this notion in a feeble effort to dismantle the theory of evolution by natural selection. They are NOT starting from the data and working up, they’re working top-down, which is not how science progresses. In other words, they have an explicit agenda, whereas responsible scientists do not. Yes, IDers and creationists are attempting to foist religion upon the masses; evolutionists are just telling the story the way all the evidence says it is.
Bottom line, there’s no place for ID in a science classroom. A philosophy classroom, or maybe even a social studies classroom? Sure. But to portray ID as somehow a valid counterpart to evolution is just crazy.
Finally, please don’t use the terms “Darwinism” or “Darwinists.” This suggests that those who believe in evolution are somehow believers in the sense that religious followers are. Would you call people who believe in gravity “Newtonians,” and the theory of gravity “Newtonism”? No, of course not, that’d be stupid. It’s evolution by natural selection, it’s Darwin’s theory, it’s real, it’s not an “ism”.
Finally, please don’t use the terms “Darwinism” or “Darwinists.”
You mean like calling people who aren’t crazy about the idea of Global Warming “deniers”. We each play our word games.
The idea behind those quotes you dismissed is that I am not interested in Creation Science.
I believe I introduced my remarks by saying, “Maybe it’s a reflection of my lack of a need to do so.” (With respect to your statement, “Perhaps your failure to answer this concern is reflective of your inability to do so?”)
So, if you want to argue with someone about this, move on.
A philosophy classroom, or maybe even a social studies classroom? Sure.
Me:I, personally, think that there is room in 12 years of education somewhere for the idea that there was purposeful creation, and that even if it is somehow, not scientifically provable (IMHO, neither is Darwinism) it is worthy of discussion to consider the necessity and value of purpose and ethics, and what role religion of any kind can play in a person’s life.
Additionally, that you believe that scientifically-literate people, who acknowledge the validity of Darwin’s theory, are attacking religion as an end-goal…
Not what I said.
What I said was, “… while the attack on religion camouflaged by the Darwinists continues apace.
Meaning that people who want to attack religion are hiding behind the scientists. At least, that what it means to me.
So you’re not getting an argument here.
A personal aside: I remembered one of your rants about how judges were not entering into science and other fields where they did not belong with some current decisions.
Here’s a little story about Judges stepping into “your turf”, as you call it.
Scientists aren’t attacking anybody’s religion. Frankly, the numbers make it clear that in all likelihood the vast majority of American scientists are also Christians. The theory of evolution does not deny the existence of God, in fact if you are a believer it should be further proof of his or her genius.
Intelligent Design posits that some sort of Creator has had a hand in the development of life. That’s great, but it is not science.
Science insists that we provide data and observation to refine our assertions. Science does not say, ultimately, where man came from. But science clearly shows evolution of species – including humans. Maybe a creator set this into motion, maybe it happened by accident. Science does not say because there is currently no way to quantify or measure that. ID says yes, there is a designer. As illustrated in the Dover case, this designer could be God or it could be an alien lifeform. Great, believe what you want, but that is not science.
ID was specifically designed to mask creationism because court after court of conservatives, liberals, Republican and Democrat have said that creationism is not science but religion and as such a violation of the first amendment when instituted in a public classroom setting. ID advocates then decided to remove the references to God in creationist textbooks and literature and instead refer to a Designer. It is the same idea, and why ID does not qualify as science and is instead regarded as religious teaching and not appropriate for use in a public school science class.
I have no problem with people believing in intelligent design or creationism, but they have no right to push a belief in public school. If ID were a legit scientific theory, like many other alternate theories for other scientific principles that eventually worked their way into mainstream science (for example, being published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, something no ID-related work has been able to survive as far as I know) then there would be no problem in teaching it in schools.
The only place ID remotely fits into a public school is possibly in a class or unit devoted to comparing religion or perhaps social studies. But again, it is not scientific and thus has no place in science class.
Oliver, you just used more words to say what mambochicken already said. And it was your post originally.
What I’m saying is this:
I don’t need Creation Science to believe in God, or his omnipotent omnipresence.
I do believe that this “don’t let creationism near our school” masks an attempt to drive God from the public square, and then from public discourse. If you don’t believe that, or that is not YOUR intention, that does not change my mind about it.
I also believe that science will, someday, confirm that the Universe was indeed created by an Intelligent Being that still exists. In other words, some day we will “discover” God, the way we “discovered” America.
Ignoring the fact that, unless somehow they find some actual scientific evidence to back it up, the phrase “Creation Science” is inherently oxymoronic:
There’s no escaping the fact that “Creation Science” does inevitably have to believe in God, or a being/force very like Him, and His omnipotent omnipresence. That’s the whole point of “Creation Science”
So in other words you’d either be wrong and angry than right and content.
“I do believe that this “don’t let creationism near our school” masks an attempt to drive God from the public square, and then from public discourse. If you don’t believe that, or that is not YOUR intention, that does not change my mind about it.”
And your crusade to prove you are the most stupid person here continues.
Creationism isn’t science, therefore it can’t be taught in science class. Intelligent Design isn’t science, therefore it can’t be taught in science class. It can be taught in socials class during a chapter on comparitive religions, but that’s about it.
There’s also that little matter of separation of church and state… not that it concerns Frank, of course…
Gee, I thought you “science guys” were smart. It seems you can’t even read.
At no time did I say that either creationism (a belief that the Genesis story is scientifically accurate, which I do not even believe), or Intelligent Design (which, of course, I do believe, having lived on this planet 60 plus years, and having a) received no credible evidence to the contrary; and b) having never such a similar accident or coincidence either duplicated or even reported) should be taught as science in schools.
I did mention, and repeat that the idea that the Universe was purposefully created and that religion (as well as personal morals and ethics) has a place in the public education system; a point with which you seem to agree.
If there is another way to say, I can’t think of what it might be, with one possible exception: Either you don’t know what you’re talking about, or you don’t know what I’m talking about; but I damn sure know what I’m talking about.
Happy Mothers’ Day, you mothers!
frank,
the problem is that you seem to be (consistently) coming down on the side of the ID _movement_, which makes no bones about its agenda of teaching ID alongside of evolution in the SCIENCE classroom. And, when that has failed, of pressuring school systems to at least, “teach the controversy” when, of course, there is no scientific controversy whatsoever.
A significant fraction of graduating high school seniors in this country have NEVER been taught evolution in the course of their education. (Only 39% of high schools in Louisianna, for example, consider it a “significant” part of the science curriculum.) Many, many school teachers throughout the country simply skip the subject. Most of these teachers, having received degrees in biology from accredited (and credible) colleges and universities, are qualified to teach it and accept it as good science. But they (or their administrators) are afraid of the controversy which would arise if evolution were a recognized part of the curriculum.
Quaker: Ditto. Nice post.
Frank, my only qualm with your latest post… you have received no credible evidence to the contrary that the universe wasn’t purposefully conceived? Perhaps this is because you aren’t paying attention. Read Dawkins’ new book, he does an excellent job of dissecting and discounting the idea of a intelligently-planned universe.
Last thing… they have been able to generate amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins, which comprise life. Scientists generated them by passing an electric current through a gaseous vapor with the same chemical composition as the early Earth. In other words, they put lightning through an early Earth atmosphere and got the most fundamental component of life as we know it. So yeah… take that.
the problem is that you seem to be (consistently) coming down on the side of the ID _movement
No, the problem for YOU is that it seems that way to YOU.
Of course, I believe in Intelligent Design. I believe in God. I believe the creation process proceeded from the mind of God, and was and is, guided by Him, even now.
What should I say? I believe in evolution,as long as it’s taught in schools? No,that’s your game.
If you don’t want the idea or concept of God, morals, ethics,and the like taught in school, say so, and drop the pretense.
I have no pretense. I believe God is the Instrument of Evolution. But I’ll bet none of you find that teaching acceptable, either.
Because, for you, you believe that the separation of Church and State means, not that the State can’t interfere with the Church, but that a Church can’t express itself in a state setting.
Further, you believe in the Separation of God and State, which not one — NOT ONE — of the Founding Fathers believed.
Frank…
1) No reply to my post. I’m not surprised.
2) You can believe anything you want. It’s a matter of public policy that we’re debating here, not your personal beliefs about God and evolution, wrongheaded as I may think they are.
3) “If you don’t want the idea or concept of God, morals, ethics,and the like taught in school, say so, and drop the pretense.”
Stop the equivocation between God, morality and ethics. Just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself. One doesn’t have to believe in God in order for them to be a moral individual. In fact, I would say that people behaving well without the spectre of an angry God or eternal hellfire are intrinsically MORE moral than those who are coerced into good behavior.
4) “Further, you believe in the Separation of God and State, which not one — NOT ONE — of the Founding Fathers believed.”
You might want to read up on ol’ Thomas Jefferson, Frank. Methinks that you’re talking completely out of your ass at this point.
On a different note, who gives a flying fuck what the founding fathers believed, anyway? Even ignoring the self-evident wrongness of your statement, why is invoking of the Founding Fathers considered an argument? It’s a ploy to present a point without evidence or a logical argument.
5) “What should I say? I believe in evolution,as long as it’s taught in schools?”
Does anyone have a clue as to what this means? I’m just curious.
Oh, and just for the record, Frank… the theory of evolution by natural selection doesn’t need God there to “guide it.” The theory works just fine in the absence of any deity. That’s part of the reason that it’s a scientifically sound theory in the first place. God is just excess baggage on Darwin’s theory… which makes God “what” with respect to the theory of evolution? I’ll give you a hint, it’s a six-syllable word, starts with “U” and ends in “S”, and rhymes with “unbarsimonious.” I eagerly await your answer.
mambochicken: I didn’t race to respond to your post, because I was typing just about the same time as you were typing yours, and didn’t see yours.
And I am not playing the age card when I tell you that the long peptide chains in swamp water trick goes back to before you were even born. And has never progressed any farther.
That’s why I tend to side with the people who say that the problem with evolution is that it is way to slow. “Punctuated equilibrium” was offered up for a while as a possible answer to that, but I seem to recall it was discarded.
I would say that people behaving well without the spectre of an angry God or eternal hellfire are intrinsically MORE moral than those who are coerced into good behavior.
You would say that if, and only if, you were ignorant of the religious beliefs of most of the people on this planet. Which is why it wouldn’t hurt for people to learn more about religion.
Based on most of the comments I have read here on this blog, most of the posters know little or nothing about the religions they criticize.
Mambochicken: I suggest you read up on any and all the Founding Fathers you choose, and see if you can find one that didn’t believe 1) In a God who created the world and guided and protected the founding of the United States; 2) That the free and unfettered right to practice religion, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, was a right we all were born with.
Does anyone have a clue as to what this means?
Once the insults start, I know you have run out of things to say. So the snarkiness and condescension creeps in like Carl Sandburg’s Fog, on “little cat’s feet”.
Here’s what it means: You, and the other Darwinists, are magnanimously telling us exactly where and when we can practice religion, and defining it for us. But when we do it, it’s tyrannical and theocratic.
Finally, I don’t really care if evolution “needs” God’s hand to guide it. I didn’t say it “needed it”, or that it couldn’t have taken place without His guiding hand.
I’ll say it again: The time will come, in the future, when the existence of a conscious source of all the life in Universe (which still exists) will be “proven”, “demonstrated” with evidence, and all the necessary scientific requirements.
And, on that day, Darwinism will go the way of the homunculus, phlogiston, and mal aria.
I see you’re out of argument again, so I’ll quit here. I think I was pretty reasonable, I think I heard you out, without any need to insult you.
You seem to have failed to accomplish those three things.
I think that it’s both amusing and revealing that you can readily admit that there is no empirical evidence to back up your claims, but still hold onto your beliefs like a child grips onto a security blanket… all the while, still proclaiming that science will bear you out in the end. You don’t know that, Frank. In fact, I believe that as we learn more and more about the universe around us, God will have fewer gaps to hide in, and will eventually fade from view altogether. That has been the pattern thus far throughout history, and there has been no sign of a reversal in the trend. Unfortunately, I don’t believe that I will be alive to witness the logical conclusion of this sequence of events… we’re progressing too slowly for that.
So yeah, anyway, don’t hold your breath waiting for Darwin to be disproven. It’s not likely to happen. Meanwhile, watch your imaginary friend grow continually smaller and weaker. I’m loving the view from here.
“Further, you believe in the Separation of God and State, which not one — NOT ONE — of the Founding Fathers believed.”
Oh, screw the Founding Fathers, they weren’t automatically right about everything. They also kind of liked the idea of thinking for yourself.
Why would you think that I “hold onto [my] beliefs like a child grips onto a security blanket”
Are you suggesting that my belief in God is driven apprehension or insecurity, perhaps even desperation?
That is a common erroneous belief held by people such as yourself, who think it useful, even important, that God NOT exist…
I don’t know why it is important ti that God does not exist, and while I do get curious about it from time to time, I don’t nearly as exercised about it as you are by believing in God.
Consider:
1) We don’t want you practicing that religion stuff in school, near our kids (recently, a movie about a high school football team that turned to Jesus to win football games was given a PG – 13). Parents! Be careful! In this movie, they talk about Jesus — approvingly. Be careful.
2) We don’t want religion practiced on public territory, A municipality was forced recently to cover up a Worl War I memorial because it was shaped like a cross.
3) Prayer in school — gone… Bible Study Group after school — gone!
4) Mention of Christmas is controversial.
If anyone seems nervous and insecure it’s you atheists
Please explain to me how I’m the one who doesn’t know the future? And you are?
We’re fighting religious fanatics for control of the earth. You’re on the side of those who want to leave the battle field, and yet you can predict the demise of religion as a force in people’s lives?
From the standpoint of religiosity vs. secularism, how do you see secularism as the winner in what Samuel Huntington calls “The Clash of Civilizations”.
I am not expecting to be alive when Darwin’s theory of evolution is proven false, but I know this: monotheism has been around for about 6,000 years, Darwin’s theory less than 200. I’m betting that monotheism is fitter.
Oh, screw the Founding Fathers
NG, are you hitting that pipe again?
“Please explain to me how I’m the one who doesn’t know the future? And you are?”
That’s the way the trend has been going throughout history, Frank. It’s up to you to demonstrate why you thnk more scientific knowledge will prove God’s existence, and not make it less likely. As for examples the demonstrate my point… the ancient Greeks thought that Thor was angry with them when lightning storms hit. Now we know a scientific reason, the buildup of charge between the Earth and atmosphere, that causes the transfer of electrons during storms. No god needed. Many people worshipped the sun throughout history. Turns out the sun is not a god. Science has demonstrated that the Earth is much, much older than the 6000 years the Bible says it is, poking another hole in the credibility of that document. Etc, etc, etc. Tell me why this trend should be reversed anytime soon? I’ll bet you can’t.
“I am not expecting to be alive when Darwin’s theory of evolution is proven false, but I know this: monotheism has been around for about 6,000 years, Darwin’s theory less than 200. I’m betting that monotheism is fitter.”
How can I possibly argue with this kind of idiocy? This is just another variation of your “I’m old, therefore I’m right” argument. Which is just about the worst argument you’ve ever thought up, which is saying alot because you have expressed many dumb ideas on this blog.
“We’re fighting religious fanatics for control of the earth. You’re on the side of those who want to leave the battle field”
What if we all left the battlefield, Frank? What if every single person did? It would be a much more peaceful world to live in. John Lennon was fucking right.
“Oh, screw the Founding Fathers”
I agree. We in America idealize them, as if they were infallible. They weren’t. They were human, just like you and me, Frank, and perfectly capable of making mistakes. For fuck’s sake, some of them owned slaves. Again, I’ll refer you to my previous post about how appealing to the Founding Fathers is not a real argument. I don’t care if you did know them personally.
So now I’m an “old man” again?
Now, I’m invoking “Frank’s Law”.
You’re just a child in a lab smock.
Have you taught
Wouldn’t want you to miss this:
Have you taught Pinky to brush his teeth yet?
No Frank, you claimed because monotheism has been around longer than Darwin’s theory that it was better, or more correct, in some way. It’s analogous to all those times that you’ve said, “I’ve been around a long time, I’ve seen things you haven’t seen, I have better perspective on world events, when you grow up you’ll see it the way I do” bullshit you spew.
And your link doesn’t go anywhere.
I was talking about the ability to survive external stress
Wouldn’t want to disappoint.
“1) We don’t want you practicing that religion stuff in school, near our kids (recently, a movie about a high school football team that turned to Jesus to win football games was given a PG – 13). Parents! Be careful! In this movie, they talk about Jesus — approvingly. Be careful.”
Facing The Giants was given the following rating by the MPAA…
Rated PG for some thematic elements.
So unless you are talking about another Christian football movie that come out recently, I think you are mistaken.
I have a funny feeling the rest of your points are equally at odds with reality.
“Please explain to me how I’m the one who doesn’t know the future? And you are?”
You don’t know the present, how could you possibly know the future?
Your “argument” would say that my 83-year-old grandmother is more fit than I am. Clearly untrue. Just like everything else you assert.
mambochicken: Until we know your age at your death versus your grandmother’s we don’t know who is fitter.
Monotheism goes back over 6000 despite any number of assaults. Darwin’s theory is less than 200 years old. Get back to me in 2200, and let me know where they both stand.
As to whether that proves “everything I assert” is wrong, I would venture to say that it does not.
So, CSS runs to IMDB, and finds out that a movie with Christian content got a “PG” for thematic elements.
Proof that my memory failed me? Yes.
Proof that Christian principles are being marginalized? Again, yes.
I have a funny feeling the rest of your points are equally at odds with reality.
You should really keep your “funny feelings” to yourself.
“So, CSS runs to IMDB, and finds out that a movie with Christian content got a “PG” for thematic elements.”
Wrong. I knew it was PG because it’s part of my job. For someone who likes to Google me, you should have known that.
I also know that the MPAA, the organization that assigns ratings, has two ordained ministers as part of the process. So you are delusional if you think they attack Christianity.
“Proof that Christian principles are being marginalized? Again, yes.”
How? You were wrong about the rating, so how can you use it as proof for your claim.
PG is a perfectly appropriate rating for this movie. In fact, I doubt you could find a movie about a contact sport that earned a G rating. It’s just not possible.
“mambochicken: Until we know your age at your death versus your grandmother’s we don’t know who is fitter.”
Wrong, Frank. You clearly have no idea what “fitness” means. You’re scientifically illiterate. A boob of the first order. Why do you bother asserting things when you don’t know that they’re true?
Your continued insistence that monotheism’s relatively old age next to Darwin’s theory somehow makes it more reasonable, or potentially more reasonable, is the height of stupidity. See, in science, we build on older knowledge to make BETTER predictions, to formulate better models, etc. Once we have a better model, or a better descriptor, or whatever, the old model is discarded like so much trash, even if it’s “older.” Read: Bush-Mostellar model of learning vs. Rescorla-Wagner model (just as an example).
You’re just always wrong. It’s quite remarkable. I’ve never encountered anything like it before.
mambochicken: stop “pulling rank” on me, you horse’s patoot.
First of all, any reasonable person would suppose that living longer would suggest that you had “survived” longer, right?
So stop being a fucking obnoxious prig, and get over yourself.
You talk like Dr. Science, when you’re what, out of graduate school a year or two.
Get over yourself, you blowhard!
I still maintain that Darwinism will be a forgotten piece of scientific lore, a Snopes.com bit of trivia; while billions upon billions of people are comforted by, and rely upon God.
And if you want to hear about the Mount Everest of stupidity, how about someone who who is so incredibly ignorant of religion, that he thinks that God is someone’s “imaginary friend”.
Guess who said that, doofus?
1) Fitness doesn’t = survival. Why can’t you just look it up? Why do you have to insist that you’re right, even though you’re 100% wrong? It’s like you’re Stephen Colbert, only serious and not funny. I’ll give you a hint as to what “fitness” means: Identical twin sisters, 25 years old, alike in every way except that one of them is sterile. The sterile one has ZERO fitness. The other has non-zero fitness. Likewise, my grandmother has zero fitness; I however, am in the prime of baby-making age. I have much greater than zero fitness.
In other words, it’s a word that has a specific meaning. Use it incorrectly, as you’ve done over the last few posts, and you just end up looking like a complete ass.
“I still maintain that Darwinism will be a forgotten piece of scientific lore, a Snopes.com bit of trivia; while billions upon billions of people are comforted by, and rely upon God.”
Sure, and you have nothing to back this claim up. Absolutely nothing. Pixie dust, perhaps? Dreams and a wish? You’re an idiot.
“And if you want to hear about the Mount Everest of stupidity, how about someone who who is so incredibly ignorant of religion, that he thinks that God is someone’s “imaginary friend”.”
Well, let’s see. God is imaginary. Is he not your friend? No, I suppose not. I’ll retract half my statement, and issue the following correction. God is your “imaginary commander guy.” Is that better, shit-for-brains?
You are a child…
The scariest statement I have heard im a generation is, “I however, am in the prime of baby-making age.”
God forbid.
You lose, Frank.