Well there, WW, again you provide a good deal of amusement for thinking persons. By ineptly apeing my words, you show that you're a Fundy with the brain of an ape (I realize that this is redundant, but it needs to be emphasized). Score one for evolutionary throwbacks.
Let's see how you do in the department of thinking:
: I guess that if I had chosen to bank my future on the unproven theory of evolution,
Most parts of the theory of evolution are completely proved. For example, it is beyond question by thinking persons that life has been on earth for at least a billion years, and it has evolved greatly during that time. Note that I said, "thinking persons". We can always find people who don't believe that, just like we can always find people who believe the earth is flat. The questions are, what evidence shows that the earth is spherical, and what evidence shows that life has been around for a billion years? Fundies claim that the Bible is their basis for all belief. The Bible clearly states that the earth is flat and that the sun and stars orbit around it. So much for the Bible. The Bible seems to state that mankind, and in fact all life, is only a few thousand years old. But incontrovertible evidence proves otherwise. So much for the Bible.
What does the Bible say that proves that the earth is flat? Two scriptures: Daniel 4:10-11 indicates that a single tall tree standing in the center of the earth would be visible from the entire earth. The mental picture given to the reader would naturally be in line with what he believed. Therefore the writer wrote from the viewpoint that the earth is a flat, circular object. (cf. Isaiah 40:22) Then we have Matthew 4:8 which indicates that the devil took Jesus in a vision to the top of a tall mountain and from there showed him all the kingdoms of the earth. Again this is possible only from a flat earth. Why would God give an incorrect picture of the shape of the earth to several Bible writers, who then conveyed that wrong picture to Bible readers? The answer is simple: no God had anything to do with writing the Bible, and what is in the Bible is a normal product of very good storytellers of their day.
: putting my soul and the souls of all whom I influence at risk, I would be bitter also.
Here you're using a classic circular argument: assuming your conclusion.
: You are so special to the Watchtower that even your well-known apostasy hasn't gotten you df. How is that, Al baby? Are you some relative of Rutherford or do you have a rich uncle bethelite keeping your sorry butt clean?
They're afraid of me. What's your point, bozo?
: As usual, Alan, you provide endless amusement.
Ah, good! At a minimum you have the brains to parrot what I said.
: You of all braindead agnostics have no call to complain about anyone failing to provide good arguments. Most of the time, others manage at least a response, however weak. You, however, usually don't even manage a response.
But here you parrot without understanding and without facts to back your misguided attempt at humor. The basis of all humor is fact. Often, humor is a distortion of fact, which becomes funny when the teller and the listener both know that distortion is occurring, and more importanly, know why it is occurring. But distortion goes only so far. A moron might try to make a joke by saying, "Trees are made of cheese." But it falls flat because everyone knows that trees are not made of cheese, and in that tiny context, there's no point to such a statement. Of course, a good comedian could set an elaborate stage in which that punchline might be extremely funny. Your statement about my lack of decent responses is clearly in the camp of morons. Everyone on this board knows that I almost always make detailed responses, usually with all sorts of source references. This response right here is an example. In fact, some have complained that my responses are too detailed. On the other hand, you are known for running away. Just as you'll do with this thread.
: In a word, you're a hypocrite. (a favorite term here that you use to intimidate others who disagree)
I've demonstrated by giving concrete examples that you're a hypocrite. You fail to give substantive responses to anything. I almost always give substantive responses to everything. So who is the hypocrite?
: Worse, you're an arrogant hypocrite. (a step up in scale of intent)
Here you again show that you're capable of simulating intelligent comments, when you have a model to emulate.
: Worst of all, you're a braindead alleged intellectual arrogant hypocrite. ( a slanderous comment mean't to further intimidate)
Accusations need to be backed up by facts. Where are your facts? You have none. Thus, because you pretend to have facts when you have none, you're braindead and you're arrogant.
Here is a fact for you to deal with: the Bible contains no verifiable evidence whatsoever for the resurrection of Jesus. The statement that some 500 people witnessed the resurrection is of no more or less value than the statement that WW yesterday killed 500 people.
Now let's see you present a fact.
: Are these ad hominems? One not familiar with you might think so. But anyone who has had the displeasure of dealing with you for several years knows that these are simple statements of fact that can be objectively proved. (Not by you)
This post is a good proof that you have no facts at your disposal, that you know it, and that you're too proudly stupid to acknowledge it. The proof is simple: you will present no arguments and no facts to prove anything you've parroted from my first post.
: You have yet to respond to certain posters about providing proof for your claims (borrowed from that arch-dickhead Jan Hoagland) about the supposed massive evidence for evolution.
Over the past decade, on many Internet forums, I've provided massive evidence for evolution. The fact that you dismiss it without reading a line of it only indicates your own prejudice against facts.
: (Alan revels in being free from any censorship. he can now allow his true character to emerge unhindered)
A meaningless ad hominem. Two points for Jan.
: The fact is you can't provide it, other than referring to the already-thoroughly-debunked Java man,
Java man's existence is thoroughly proved. A number of books and solid papers have been written giving the proof. The mere dismissal of such by young-earth creationists is of no more import than their dismissal of the fact that the earth is some 4.6 billion years old.
: and you know it. Just like you know you can't provide any more proof, or even decent evidence, for many of your claims than the Watchtower can.
I have several thousand pages on Osarsif's website debunking Watchtower claims. What can you say for yourself?
: And so, like Watchtower officials, you spew a lot of bullshit, hoping that a few braindead supporters will give you solace by emailing you a few valueless kudos.
More mindless parroting.
: (Al still believes in the WTS exgesis of doctrine, as opposed to Biblical doctrine.
That's news to me.
: Al rails about the WTS but they haven't given him his pink slip yet, he prefers to wear it under his trousers!)
Is that an attempt at humor? It isn't an attempt at parroting.
: So typical. JWs and people like you are all pups from the same old whining bitch. (A phrase that Jim Penton plagarized from Walter Martin)
I don't know about Martin, but your claim simply doesn't fit. JWs and more standard Fundies have essentially the same belief system. They differ in a few details that are so miniscule that non-Christians have a hard time understanding the differences. The essentials amount to: God will kill you if you don't believe my way.
I doubt that you can provide any sort of quotation from Walter Martin. Martin had his good points, but objectivity was not one of them.
So now, WW, let's see if you can manage something more than a mindless parroting of your betters. I'm sure your faceless email groupies would love to see it. And if you moronic groupies actually exist, let's see you come to the rescue of Fearless Leader here. Let's see you write down a fact. Betcha can't write even one.
AlanF
