Archive for January, 2009

George Noory and Jay Helping to Destroy the World

January 28, 2009 Leave a comment

Typical destructive wordly stuff I heard on Coast to Coast AM Radio, yesterday I think:

 "we need to reject what we hear" "trust your heart" "we can save ourselves" "the human mind can out-think anything" "we don’t wanna be following any leaders". A truly destructive narcissist. George Noory, talking about the world, "They need some hope." Jay replies, "Nobody’s offering it." Wow, so all these Christians don’t exist? There’s no Bible with Jesus offering eternal life? There are no organizations around offering help to anyone, none? What a blind, babbling liar. And what was George’s assessment of his guest? "He is superb." he said with a happy voice (at 2:27 A.M.).

Ian Punnet Master of Divinity Messes Up On Religion Again

January 26, 2009 Leave a comment

Bumbling liar Ian Punnet who boasts about his master of divinity degree messed up on religion again two days ago when he interviewed Adrienne. He showed how masterful of the divine he was: He he called a supernatural audio-only hearing of God or an angel a "theophany". A theophany is visible you moron, and when a caller corrected him during a break, he repeatedly lied by pretending that it was not-often used to describe the hearing of God or angels. What a stubborn idiot. You are so prideful that you instead choose to repeatedly misdefine a word than admit you are wrong! Hey Ian and other liberal Christians, can you permit us to also lie on the fly and make up nonsense to save face, and so that we never have to admit when we’re wrong? It was a big hint that Ian knew he messed up when he further tried to justify his misuse of the word when he said, "Even if I misused the word" but wait Ian, I thought it’s correctly but rarely used to describe only hearing God or an angel? Is it really so hard for you to admit when you’re wrong about something to do with religion Ian, or anything at all?

After coming back from a break Ian then said that he received an email from someone saying that they thought "theophany" only meant a supernatural appearance, and then Ian said that he used to word to describe the "hearing the voice of God, like an angel". What the Hell kind of grammar is that Ian? Can you calm down, can you be patient enough to speak sensibly, and not stupidly? Obviously you meant, "or an angel", but you just got caught making a stupid mistake by being careless with your speech, so what justification do you have for doing right away and on the very topic of you being careless? Then he said, "you’re exactly right. Usually, it can just mean any manifestation we experience with our senses, but it is often used to explain any manifestation we experience with our senses, it’s a cool word, even if I didn’t just use it exactly moments ago." That’s not an exact quote because Ian was rapidly babbling in his attempt to brush away his stupid error. So, because it’s a cool word, that makes it no biggy that someone who claims to be a follower of Christ and boasts about being an expert in the Bible incorrectly used a common word taught to students of the Bible like Ian once was? That sure makes sense Ian! So as long as the word I use is cool, it’s okay if I misdefine it! Can I speak grammatically nonsensically as long as the words I’m mashing up are cool too? Please Ian?

A while later Ian claimed the correct word for a supernatural audio-only event from God or an angel was "theosany" and not "theophany", a word which, no suprise to me, DOES NOT APPEAR IN WEBSTER’S UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY, which is a huge dictionary and dates the appearance of words and includes ancient English words. He said, "I only give that word, it might be a good scrabble word", again grammatically messing up. But so he only mentions that the correct word is "theosany" so we can have fun using it in Scrabble, but not so that we MAKE SENSE? Yeah, making sense matters less than having fun in a game that only permits words that actually exist, not ones that don’t. Oh wait, maybe it appears in the dictionary of the Harper-Collins Study Bible, the Bible Ian that Ian loves most.

Ian contradicted himself again at about 11:45 P.M.): After telling a caller not to vote by race, he then said "Just vote for who you think is the best person, that’s the only way to go through life." So if the so-called racist caller thinks whites are the best people, should he vote for whites only Ian? Then at 11:53-55 P.M., Ian the moron said that in another time an anti-abortionist who crashed his car into a Planned Parenthood building because God supposedly told him to, would be known as a saint, like the Christian "saints" who were "charitable". What the Hell does charitable have to do with crashing your car into a building and possibly accidentally killing a pregnant woman? Ian, Catholics may have considered that a holy act, please be specific at least instead of risking giving idiots like yourself the impression that all Christians are "nuts".

Wow, now at 12:24 Ian the master moron is parroting the falsehood that birds evolved from reptiles. Moron Ian, your "modern day scholars", the paleontologists, don’t push that theory as a fact or even plausible anymore, and is was never accepted as a fact by all of them either.

Woooow, at 12:57 Ian the master of divinity says, "the story of Noah and the big fish". JONAH, not NOAH, you false Christian moron. Talk about careless. Wow, at 1:22 he said Noah again till the guest he was interviewing corrected him.

Why does the producer of Coast to Coast A.M. allowed to be a talk show host of anything at all? The same evil radio station, that pretends to be conservative, yet lets Jim Villianucci babble his anti-Christian bigotry, supports Coast to Coast A.M.. KKOB, how about boycotting them until they at least get rid of this fake Christian who pretends to be a master of divinity? At least Jim doesn’t call himself a Christian (but he does imply that he is for Christ, which is a lie, being that he’s completely opposed Christ’s "tell it to the church" rule).

Wow, after listening to the re-airing of this episode, I noticed Ian say, attempting to be funny, that he had a question, here it is, "My Boston terrier would only be able to attack someone if they were dressed as a giant squirrel" or some statement almost exactly like that. How the Hell is that a question, and how is that funny? Grow up idiot.

I also noticed that he got mostly stupid, nonsensically ranting callers during his show, which is not typical of Coast to Coast. It seems logically if that you’re a stupid and vain host, and regularly rant, and no one fires you, then the people who will be paying attention and responding to you the most will also be stupid, vain, and rant.

George Noory claimed that the audience of Coast to Coast A.M. was the most intelligent of all radio-show audiences, if that were true, I’m sure Ian is repelling them with his nutty anti-funny ranting. And the liberal, ranting, psuedo-Christian narcassist Mr. Noory had on the day before got me to turn off the radio till he was off-air. It was obvious that Mr. Noory was sickened by this guest’s ranting and that he had him taken off the air because he was ranting so badly. In place of him he instead took calls from the audience. To my amazement there were callers who agreed with the ranting nut. Some "intelligent" audience. I’m sure Mr. Noory was relieved though being that these callers helped him to save face after having allowed such a stupid person onto his show.

Mr. Producer of Coast to Coast A.M., just because Ian and Noory speak with a pleasant tone, does that qualify them as good hosts? Are you addicted to preying on stupid people? Would you rather have an audience that is composed of mostly intelligent people? See if you can do better than Bell and Noory who distort their voice in ridiculous ways to sound prestigious and wise who agree with nearly whatever their guests say with their "of course"’s and "exactly"’s to give the false appearance that they are knowledgeable, and Punnet who babbles childishly to his gross ignorance.

Recently a show that Art Bell hosted was re-aired. On it, a caller told Art that Jesus might be a human that aliens genetically engineered to be perfectly moral / more peaceful than the average human. Art quickly responded, nonsensically, and insultingly, with something like, "That’s it? That’s all the aliens could do? We have all these wars, George Bush making wars…" Wow, so the Bible becoming the most positively influential, and best-selling and most freely available and translated book in the world = future wars by fake Christians and George Bush, and is "That’s all"? What an arrogant wicked person Art Bell is. What a vain boaster. So what have you accomplished that was greater than what Jesus has accomplished Mr. Jesus Did Nothing That Great Art The Great Bell? Was is your relentless pompous huffings for many years on the radio? Pompous huffing really has helped the world to spiritually advance, to become more peaceful and to technologically progress. Pompous huffing is just such a wonderful peace- and wisdom-generating activity. It just breeds love to talk like you’re a stereotypical English king who is mocking the needy and poor.

Mr. Producer of Coast to Coast A.M., or are you trying to make the entire world puke from non-stop stupidity?

It’s very clear that ALL of the hosts of Coast to Coast A.M. except George Knapp, and no doubt the producer, are narcassists. It’s really obvious Art Bell with his pompous tone is one, George Noory, who like Art Bell, soaks up praise like a dry sponge touching water.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: ,

How Stupid the Darwinist Contributors and Moderators of Wikipedia Are

January 26, 2009 Leave a comment

On the Talk page of the Abiogensis page in Wikipedia it says (or did say a few weeks ago):

"This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute."

So these people are so blind, so ignorant, so stupid, that they can’t even agree as to whether or not there is agreement? So they are so ignorant they aren’t aware of Intelligent Design or Creationist scientists who dispute it? Really? So they don’t have any information on Wikipedia about Intelligent Design / Creation Science? They don’t have a list of any scientists who support that theory? So they don’t have a page on Answers In Genesis, or Ken Ham, or Michael Behe, or Francis Crick, etc.? They are so dumb, that they can’t even agree on whether or not anyone disputes the information on their page, and yet Wikipedians want us to believe that their encyclopedia is trustworthy, reliable. What evil, confused, and stupid liars they are.

Also on that page is this entry which I put in blue so that you know where it starts and ends (any bold lettering you see is from me so that you especially notice those parts):

Polyp2 (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    If Tmol42 isn’t watching this page, you can get his attention by asking him at the bottom of User talk:Tmol42. There he will be notified as soon as he logs on. Art LaPella (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    Polyp2, I see you are new to WP so will explain in a bit more detail. In short your edit was reverted as it was not substantiated by the reference you provided. The reference you provided to back up the edit was to a flyer for a book Here which turns out to be no more than an advert for the book with no explanation of the theory or a citation of research to substantiate the edit. In fact it appears the book is more to do with ‘a call to arms’ to start /continue research in this area talking about ID and Darwin. I see the author is postulating a Darwinian-linked theory which is in itself enough to ring alarm bells for some and claims of popularism from others. WP is an encyclopedia and not a place for promoting books per se which would be also be sufficient reason to remove the citation. In short its much better to stick to more traditional sources here.

    Visitors to WP should expect the content of articles to be reliable, have their rigor tested, and to be backed up by robust references. This is more often also achieved for such subjects through discussion and consensus reached on the Talk Pages, and is commonplace regardless of the notoriety of a fact or theory.

Yet another Wikipedian in addition to the Darwinist called "JoshuaZ" who says that the information on Wikipedia is there because of a concensus to keep it there, and not because it is TRUE. And don’t forget, according to JoshuaZ Wikipedia is not about truth, but references. So then, which is it controllers of Wikipedia, stop contradicting yourselves: Is the information you allow on Wikipedia, especially on evolution theories, there because it is true, or because of a "the concensus"? I’ll answer for you since you can’t help but make confusing lies:

Information in Wikipedia is there as long as it suits the personal feelings of the concensus of the HEAD MODERATORS of WIKIPEDIA. And there truths about the Bible are only allowed to remain there because you know that to tell certain lies about it are too obviously wrong to the many stupid visitors who come to your site, and you wouldn’t want to make it appear that your encyclopedia can’t be trusted. Plus, you might lose the support of your liberal Christian money donors. So then, Wikipedia is in part your campaign to deceive people into believing the Bible is not trustworthy. Oh, and lets not forget your deliberately suppressing information on the head bankers who oppress the world and the Free Masons who have done so. Of course, you will forget, because you hate remembering the truth.

If anyone doubts JoshuaZ said that Wikipedia was about concensus and not truth:

"Starfire, as I tried to explain to you Wikipedia cares about reliable sources and verifiability, not truth. Now, if you read that guideline, you may understand why in general AIG and many of the other sources you used are not reliable sources." – JoshuaZ

JoshuaZ is contradicting himself being that whether or not a thing is TRUE, TRUSTWORTHY is what determines it’s reliablity. JoshuaZ and his friend Darwinist administrators would like us to believe that a lie is reliable. Second, where in Wikipedia’s guidelines does it say that Answers In Genesis is unreliable? No where. So why is JoshuaZ lying? JoshuaZ is clearly an unreliable, untrustworthy, anti-Christian bigot as are those in Wikipedia who have been supporting him, which includes Jimmy Wales, whom they pretend was Wikpedia’s founder.

"Charming, and I was about to come and add a comment about how your remark here was WP:UNCIVIL but it could just as well apply to your above remark. In general saying editors are being "childish" is not advised and could lead to WP:BLOCK. As to why discussion would be preferred, see this page which explains the Wikipedia procedure in general. Wikipedia works by consensus and so if there is material that not all editors are ok with, they generally wish to discuss it. Very often some form of compromise or rewrite with some of the material will be included or all of it will be if the consensus is clear." – JoshuaZ (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: JoshuaZ again slandered me and plain lied: I didn’t say the editors of Wikipedia were childish, as in anyone who edits is childish, but THE MODERATORS (administrators).

Then JoshuaZ said:

"Also, I suggest you don’t use the edit summary "rebuke" indeed, the entire notion of rebuking editors with whom you disagree with is probably not a good one. I suggest you try to improve your attitude to be more cooperative with other editors. Wikipedia is not a battleground but a collective attempt to build an encyclopedia." – JoshuaZ (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"probably"? JoshuaZ why would I care about your probablies? Who are you? And yet users like Griot were and are allowed to repeatedly harass and make insults (which are rebukes) against those who oppose them on Wikipedia. What a biased truth-hating hypocrite you are JoshuaZ. Stop babbling and stop lying.

And as for concensus, you idiot:

A Growing Concensus that Darwinists are Wrong

The Washington Times reports ‘a growing consensus’ among philosophers, intellectuals and scholars that atheism is in decline worldwide. But this does not mean that ‘re-Christianization’ is occurring—instead Flew and others merely believe in some form of intelligence behind the design of the universe.

The Washington Times,, March 9, 2005.

Or is the Washington Times not reliable JoshuaZ, will that be your next arbitrary excuse to supress the truths in the Bible?

Further, British philosopher Antony Flew, long renowned as ‘an intellectual ambassador of secular humanism’, is now a theist.

He said that it was impossible for evolution to account for the fact that a single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

A Stupid Darwinist’s Stupid Explanation As To How Darwinism Can Be Compatible With Belief In God

January 25, 2009 Leave a comment

According to the Darwinist author of Fossil Legends of the First Americans, Adrienne Mayer, it would be more magnificant if God had let things evolve over millions of years rather than just created things and that the history of the universe "compressed" (yes, she and Ian The Moron Punnet said "compressed", as if Bible-believers taught that all life macro-evolved in 6000 years) into 6000 years is "not scientific but faith-based". Question for the Fossil Legend woman, who is a non-scientists she said: What the Hell does your opinion that brutish savage stupidity for millions of years is more glorious than God creating all living things as perfectly healthy, and building into them the ability to multiply rapidly into incredibly beautifully varied forms and still able to survive wonderfully, and still able to reproduce with one another, have to do with the Bible not being scientific for teaching that the universe is about 6000 years old? So what were you saying about "more amazing" and faith? So you really think that billions of unobservable years, billions of years you will never ever see, but can only barely and boringly imagine, of repetitive brutal killing and pointless storms and earthquakes, and pointless mass extinctions (and humans deliberately and stupidly causing extinctions of types of animals) is more wonderful than DELIBERATE DESIGN OF UNSEARCHABLY COMPLEX AND VERY BEAUTIFUL LIVING CREATURES ABLE TO SURVIVE DESPITE AND BY MAJOR MUTATIONS AND A DELIBERATE WORLD-WIDE FLOOD NEARLY ENDING ALL LAND-DWELLING LIFE ON EARTH? You’re that confused huh? So you’re so vain as to believe that you have the patience for billions of years of repetition that you’ll never see, and an evolutionary process you can’t explain logically, nor can Darwinist scientists, to pass before a HUMAN comes into being, a human that is far wiser than animal, able to write books like you have? So billions of years of brutal dumb-dumb repetition is more exciting to you then a perfectly wise and perfectly loving, and just being loving creating perfectly healthy, perfectly loving, super-beautiful and super-complex beings which were programmed with fantastic wisdom to survive on their own? You must hate creation then! You must hate writing books, teaching, technology, robots, robotics, artificial intelligence, and wisdom. Much better to you is billions of years of brutality than speed and peaceful constructiveness! Truly you are just as you claim: brutish animals which use lies to survive. You said it. I’m bored, I wanna go watch some animals brutality kill each other! Wanna watch a lion crush a Zebra’s neck with me? Or lets watch some soldiers bomb civilians! Survival of the fittest! Yaaaaaay! Wooooooh hooo, exciting! Come on lets have some blood-spattering, flesh-ripping, war-mongering, earthquake-killing fun for the next infinite years! Don’t come back Mr. God now ya hear! Yahear me God!? It would be boring if you came back and ruined this cool exciting and evolution stuff! Leave us alone to evolve and learn on our own you stupid boring God! You’re more exciting God if you just sit back and watch and do nothing! Yeah, that’s excitement, you doing nothing! Just go away, vanish, stop existing!

You atheists and Bible-doubting, liberal self-proclaimed "Christians" sure make sense huh? Not. So you want "proof" that God exists by seeing him, and yet say it’s more exciting if God has nothing to do with anything. What disgusting confused hypocrites you are. You truly do damn God and his followers no matter what they do or say. You are truly mentally ill and morally insane.

Ian Punnett – The Lazy Master of Careless Lying

January 20, 2009 2 comments

Early in the morning, two days ago, on Coast to Coast AM radio, Ian Punnet, the host of the usually wacky show Coast to Coast AM, was asked by a caller who pointed that Ian was an ordained minister (as if merely being one makes you a scholar of anything) which Bible was the most accurately translated. This caller also said that Harold Camping (a wacky Christian) said that the King James was the most accurate. Ian, being the stupid liar that he is, claimed that the King James Bible was not an accurate translation because “modern scholars” said so! Yeah, and we all know we can always trust “modern scholars” whoever they are, because, uh, um, well because they’re “modern” and “scholars”! No wait, it’s because Ian said so!

Ian, who loves to reference Wikipedia for his information, was too lazy, and too into casual lying in arrogance, to bother referencing Wikipedia this time. About the King James Bible and it’s translation style, Wikipedia in part says:

“Dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence are two approaches to translation. The dynamic (also known as functional equivalence) attempts to convey the thought expressed in a source text (if necessary, at the expense of literalness, original word order, the source text’s grammatical voice, etc.), while formal attempts to render the text word-for-word (if necessary, at the expense of natural expression in the target language). …

Formal equivalence(:)

New American Standard Bible
English Standard Version
King James Version (formal equivalence, albeit to 17th-century English)”

So Ian, it’s not a paraphrase according to modern scholars, including the ones who contributed to the Wikipedia page on the KJVB, whom you trust.

Ian the same the casually lying moron who didn’t know that the location of Noah’s Ark has been known for thousands of years, but he instead mislead hundreds of thousands of his listeners otherwise, when he asked the NON-SCHOLAR OF THE BIBLE if anyone had found it. And she, being a God-hating vain ignoramus, claimed in plain language that it had not been found. Ian, being the lazy ignorant he is, said nothing in reply. Ian also said nothing when she made fun of Christians who believed in Revelation 14, because she, in her mocker-mind, imagined that millions or billions would have to die for blood to come up to the reins of a horse.

According to Ian (and his unknown “modern scholars”) the King James Bible is a “paraphrase”, and that he uses the Harper Collins Bible because it’s more accurately translated. NO MORON IAN, the King James Bible is not a “paraphrase” and I, a “modern scholar”, and of the Bible (and “of the Bible” not simply a “modern scholar” really matters Ian) and I’ve never heard of any modern scholar who said the King James was a paraphrase. You must be super ignorant and a very hateful person to tell such an outrageous lie so casually. You want the world to believe that you are better scholars then the translators of the King James Bible; ARE YOU JOKE? Sadly the answer is “No”. Ian you’re a narcissist. You who love googling and Wikipedia (an atheist and Darwinist dominated encyclopedia) couldn’t be bothered to use either to find out information on the accuracy of the King James Bible, one of the most popular best selling books in the world, want us to believe that you know which Bible is the most accurate, let alone that you know anything of spiritual value?

What idiot who has read the King James Bible, who had half a brain enough to be curious enough to why it was filled with words in italics and to find out, doesn’t know that the King James is a dynamic (literal, not a paraphrase) translation? Do you know why there are italics in the Bible you evil bad-joke making goon? I’ll tell you you lazy Master of Divinity: BECAUSE THE TRANSLATORS OF THE KJV WANTED READERS OF IT TO KNOW WHEN WORDS IN IT WERE NOT REALLY THERE, BUT IMPLIED IN THE HEBREW LANGUAGE AND SO THAT IT MADE SENSE IN ENGLISH. IN OTHER WORDS YOU MORON, IT’S NOT A PARAPHRASE. TO YOUR SHAME, MILLIONS OF CHRISTIAN KIDS, WITH NO MASTERS OF DIVINITY DEGREE, WHO DON’T CLAIM TO BE SCHOLARS, KNOW THAT FACT, AS DO HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF NON-CHRISTIANS I’M SURE. How the Hell is it that you, who implies that you are a know-it-all when it comes to the Bible, don’t know that simple fact, let alone where Noah’s Ark is?

You are sickening. No wonder so many people hate you, as you acknowledge: You are a truth-careless narcissist. On top of that you’re voice isn’t radio-host worthy, your jokes are terrible, and your choice of music is awful. Please, show some of that Biblical “jusitice” you pretend to care about, and apologize for lying to your listeners and what you lied about, and let someone better than you, who really do know anything about the Bible, take your place on the air.

A Fearmongering Attorney from Kansas Warns the World About the Coming American Religious War

January 7, 2009 Leave a comment

From an ignorant’s website:

Hermeneutics can be an important weapon to use against religious fanatics in the coming ARCW. The hard core nut cases– those who would control every aspect of our lives by forcing us to accept their understanding of the will of their god–tend to share certain operational assumptions. These include the belief that:

1) Every word of the bible is true.

2) The English translation of the bible authorized by King James the First of England, completed in 1611, Common Era, is the only fully acceptable, authoritative, and inspired-by-god translation of holy scripture. This translation is accurate in every respect, including punctuation marks.

My reply:

And don’t ya know that KJOnlyists are just so numerous and so powerful and just have so much influence? What a moron you are. Are you paranoid?

If you want to know what "hermeneutics" means, use a dictionary. Hint: it doesn’t mean, "Telling people how when I was in preschool, my five-year-old friend Jimmy Joe Bob told me all Christians are bad because his dad told him that there’s no evidence for that old Bible thingy book that never helped no one do nuthin’, and that his dad said you should just tell those old silly fanatical liar Christians who want to hold your head and scream in your face till you believe their three billion commandments, like their "Don’t lie" nonsense, that their Bible has too many words in it, is boring, and he hates it he’s watching cartoons about dinosaurs eating each other, and they disturb his fun by knocking on his door to talk to him."

Like I tell all moron atheists like yourself, stop assuming and accusing the good of the very thing you do impatient moron, and learn to use a search engine Mr. "Truth-Seeking Free-Thinker". Hint: Use a dictionary and learn and remember the definition of "evidence", "hatemonger", "moron", "assume", and "fanatic". And learn to research using a search engine since you clearly hate reading traditional books. Hint: It doesn’t mean clicking on search results that only say things like, "Christians are stupid", "Christians are wrong", "Sex is fun", "How Christians hate sex", "How Christians want to ban sex", "How Christians never talk about sex", "Why sex isn’t mentioned in the Bible", "The Bible is boring for not talking about porn and sex", "Why Christians won’t have sex with smart atheist attorneys", "How to force attractive Christian women to have sex with you despite your atheist beliefs", "Why I hate religion", "Why the Bible is dumb", "How the Crusades explains why atheists are failures at life", "How fundies giving away crop seeds, Bibles, food, and helping to build the infrastructure in impoverished countries and primitive tribes is destroying the world while atheists drink their liquor and smoke their cigs complaining about it" and "Why atheists are the coolest, bestest, smartest, people in the whole flat earth".

Oh and can you do us Christians a favor, can you help us to petition the Asian and former Soviet Union states to stop enslaving and murdering Christians? Also, do you think you can help us create a fund for the 150 million plus religious kids and adults atheists have killed in the past 80 years, please Mr. Prepare For the Coming Civil Religious War Against Us Civil Atheists?

God bless you Mr. Ignorant Rejected Ranting Massive Hypocrite Bigot Attorney-Prophet.

Atheist Darwinist Global Warmingist Self-called “Dawdler” Hates Bible Verses, Juz Cuz

January 6, 2009 Leave a comment

Since atheist” Dawdler” of Wikipedia is so angry at the Bible for being true, let’s see if he can tolerate atheist and Darwinist verses:


1. “Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” – G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30 (the true meaning of atheist "evolutionary science")

2. “Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: it is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings of course. However it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg.” – Carl Sagan, “Is It Possible To Be Pro-Life and Pro-Choice”. Parade Magazine, 22 April 1990, p. 5 (wow dead Carl, ".6" huh? You musta been there dead guy. Not)

3. “By the sixth week, the embryo is 13 millimeters (about 1/2 inch) long. The eyes are still on the side of the head, as in most animals and the reptilian face has connected slits where the mouth and nose eventually will be.”

“By the end of the seventh week, the tail is almost gone, and sexual characteristics can be discerned (although both sexes look female). The face is mammalian, but somewhat pig-like.”

"By the end of the eighth week, the [human fetus’] face resembles a primate, but is still not quite human.” – Carl Sagan, “Is It Possible To Be Pro-Life and Pro-Choice”. Parade Magazine, 22 April 1990, p. 6 (someone dead was living in Deluded La La Fantasy Land)

4. “Why has it taken 100 years to learn that one of the largest of all dinosaurs Apatosaurus (Brontosaurus of the school book) has been wearing the wrong head? That seems rather basic. How did this mix-up occur; and where has the old fellow’s head been all of this time? The answer to the last question is, of course, that its true head has been in the museum’s research collection for all these many years, patiently waiting for research to catch up to reality.” – Taken from the display notebook at Dinosaur National Park Museum, Vernal Utah. (Ooopsie: were that many Darwinists easy to fool, talk about "gullible", "blind", "ignorance-loving" and "living in Fantasy Land")

5. “Take black matter, for example. As fate would have it, the most recent and popular theories in physics just don’t work. It’s not as if there are some loose threads around the edges; the theories don’t work at all. If they did, the universe would instantaneously fall in on itself or fly apart. Now those of us who are not astrophysicists would probably do something like discard the theories. Not astrophysicists. They readjust the uncooperative universe to fit their theories, postulating a gigantic quantity of invisible gravity-producing stuff they call black matter, even though it’s not black and maybe not even matter. And there you are. Just like that, the modern, popular theories are back in business. I can imagine that readers new to physics and its way of doing things might be skeptical, but those of us who are higher up in the world of science feel nothing but anticipation in all this theorizing. It could, after all, be a step toward a newer and even sillier putty.” – Roger L. Welsch, “Astrophys Ed”, Natural History, February 1994, p. 25 (Can I have some Dark Matter for dinner Mr. Ben "I Only Believe What I See" Dawdler? Please Mr. I Don’t Have Faith In Anything Dawdler? What’s wrong, can’t you see any Dark Matter and get some for me? Oh, you can’t see it? Why do you believe in it then, you dummy? Contradict yourself much hypocrite?)

6. “In seeking to understand why the Haeckelian view persisted so long, we have also to consider the alternatives. We often are highly conservative and will hold to a viewpoint longer than is justified when there is no alternative or, worse, when the logical alternative upsets the rest of our world view.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Marginalia Ontogeny and phylogeny recapitulated”, American Scientist Vol. 76, May-June 1988, p. 274 (Say what about sticking with fantasies and illogical views? I must be fantasizing again, cuz Dawdler the atheist said so, yeah. Not)

7. “The secrets of evolution are time and death. Time for the slow accumulations of favorable mutations, and death to make room for new species.” – Carl Sagan, “Cosmos”, program entitled “One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue.” (Well no wonder atheists like Dawdler love hatered so much, it leads to death. No wonder they’ve killed 150+ plus million people, mostly religious, in less than 100 years; they think it’s progress!)

8. “Atheism is the philosophy, both moral and ethical, most perfectly suited for a scientific civilization. If we work for the American Atheists today, Atheism will be ready to fill the void of Christianity’s demise when science and evolution triumph.
Without a doubt, humans and civilization are in sore need of the intellectual cleanness and mental health of Atheism.” – G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30 (But I thought atheism was just "no beliefs"… shakes head at atheists’ inablity to get their fantasies straight.)

9. “These “creation-science” textbooks, if allowed in our schools, can only serve to increase that mental anguish by teaching that the Genesis gibberish is a legitimate scientific theory.” – G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 19 (And whatever the Darwinists insult makes them true. Truely they are ill.)

10. “We can use TV as a potent propaganda machine. The stage is set for the infusion of true Satanic philosophy and potent (emotionally inspiring) music to accompany the inverted crosses and pentagrams. Instead of holding our rituals in chambers designed for a few dozen people, we are moving into auditoriums crowded with ecstatic Satanists thrusting their fists forward in the sign of the horns.” – Anton Szandor LaVey, “The Devil’s Notebook”, p. 85 (Someone say "propaganda"? Nah, couldn’t be, I must be living in that creationist Fantasy Land)

11. “THE NINE SATANIC STATEMENTS … 4. Are we not all predatory animals by instinct? If humans ceased wholly from preying upon each other, could they continue to exist?”
“7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!” – Anton Szandor LaVey, “The Satanic Bible”, p. 25, 33. (Someone "atheistic" say something about violence being good? Nah, must be my fantasy weirdo self just makin that up with Bible verses again. Silly me.)

12. “All Abortions 25% Off: In January, a Denver General Hospital clinic began a program to attract reluctant inner-city pregnant women to get prenatal care by offering them free lottery tickets. And in May, a fee-charging family planning clinic in Wilmington, Del., began offering abortions at a 25 percent discount to women under age 18.” – Chuck Shepherd, News of the Weird, The Salt Lake Tribune, July 25, 1993, p. A-17 (Didn’t you say something about weird Dawdler? I remember you called someone a weirdo, were you talking about me, or you, who supports weirdos like this, who try to profit of murdering defenseless kids? Are you there sicko?)

13. “In May, biology professor George Hunt of the University of California-Irvine led a field trip to the Channel Islands near Oxnard, Calif., where he had originally spotted what he called ‘lesbian sea gulls’ in the 1970’s. Hunt had reported then that 14 percent of the 1,200 gull pairs he studied were lesbian. He admitted that he cannot tell males and females apart, but inferred because of the larger number of eggs in some nests that the hatching pair of gulls on those nests were both female.” – Chuck Shepherd, News of the Weird, The Salt Lake Tribune, October 24, 1993 (What weirdos these Darwinists are, living in the Fantasy Land in their stupid gullible heads they are)

14. “It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.” – Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), p. 205 (Weirdo Darwinist who pretends to be for "progress" and loving said what?

15. “It cannot be accidental, one is tempted to conclude, that the percentage of salt in our bloodstreams is roughly the same as the percentage of salt in the oceans of the world. The long and intricate process by which evolution helped to shape the complex interrelationship of all living and nonliving things may be explicable in purely scientific terms, but the simple fact of the living world and our place on it evokes awe, wonder, a sense of mystery—a spiritual response when one reflects on its deeper meaning.” – Al Gore, “Earth in the Balance”, p. 264 (What a dumb deluded weirdo that Al Global Warming Gore is. I wish these dumb Darwinists would shut up about their Invisible Global Warming Monster already)

16. “Human beings are made up mostly of water, in roughly the same percentage as water is to the surface of the earth. Our tissues and membranes, our brains and hearts, our sweat and tears—all reflect the same recipe for life, in which efficient use is made of those ingredients available on the surface of the earth…” … “But above all we are oxygen (61 percent) and hydrogen (10 percent), fused together in the unique molecular combination known as water, which makes up 71 percent of the human body. So when environmentalists assert that we are, after all, part of the earth, it is no mere rhetorical flourish. – Al Gore, “Earth in the Balance”, pp. 99-100 (Is a Darwinist, again, copying the Bible and AGAIN, trying to steal credit away from the Bible that they claim shouldn’t be quoted to promote the truth? I coulda sword God said something about making man from the dust of the earth… must be my fantasy prone imagination again. How convenient that Darwinist Dawdler and his dummy friends don’t want creationists quoting the Bible, but are plenty happy to steal teachings from it. Do as the Darwinists say, but not as they do huh Darwinist Dawdler? Hypocrite.)

17. “Human evolution, of course, is responsible for our very long period of childhood, during much of which we are almost completely dependent on our parents. As Ashley Montagu first pointed out decades ago, evolution encouraged the development of larger and larger human brains, but our origins in the primate family placed a limit on the ability of the birth canal to accommodate babies with ever-larger heads. Nature’s solution was to encourage an extremely long period of dependence on the nurturing parent during infancy and childhood, allowing both mind and body to continue developing in an almost gestational way long after birth.” – Al Gore, “Earth in the Balance”, p. 229 (Al Gore, a Carbon-hating (Carbon-hating = Life-hating) Darwinist, pushing the "bigger brains = smarterbrains" myth, after having been shown false DECADES ago.)

18. “I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I’ve been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn’t have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I’m a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.”
Isaac Asimov, “Free Inquiry”, Spring 1982, vol. 2 no. 2, p. 9 (Wow, so this highly respected atheist Darwinist by Darwinists admits to believing God doesn’t exist without evidence. And Dawdler called me a weirdo and told me that creationists are the fanciful ones? Creation SCIENTISTS and Calvinist Creationists believe on evidence unlike you weirdos who believe on ur special little feelings.)

19. “Everybody knows fossils are fickle; bones will sing any song you want to hear.”
J. Shreeve, “Argument over a woman”, 1990, Discover, Vol. 11 (8), p. 58 (As in DISCOVER MAGAZINE? THAT SAME DARWINIST ATHEISM-BIASED PRESTIGIOUS AMONG ATHEISTS AND DARWINISTS MAGAZINE? I must be fantasizing again because Dawdler said so! Right Dawdler?)

20. “Imaginations run riot in conjuring up an image of our most ancient ancestor—the creature that gave rise to both apes and humans. This ancestor is not apparent in ape or human anatomy nor in the fossil record.” … “…anatomy and the fossil record cannot be relied upon for evolutionary lineages. Yet palaeontologists persist in doing just this.”

21. The Nature of the Fossil Record. …

95% of the fossils (by number) consist of shallow marine organisms (e.g. corals, shellfish) Of the remaining 5%, 95% are all the algae and plant/tree fossils (including the coal) and all the other invertebrate fossils (e.g. insects)

5% of the 5% (or 0.25% of the entire fossil record) are the vertebrate fossils (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals)

only 1% of this 0.25% (or 0.0025% of the entire fossil record) are vertebrate fossils that consist of more than a single bone! (e.g. there are only about 2,100 dinosaur skeletons in all the world’s museums.)


22. “‘When paleontologists see Archaeopteryx, they see an earth-bound dinosaur that somehow mysteriously sprouted feathers for swatting insects or some other purpose, and they say flight originated from the ground up.’ Feduccia says. ‘However, when most ornithologists see Archaeopteryx, they see a flying bird because everything about feathers says flight to them. The conclusion we have drawn is that flight originated from trees down, which makes a lot more sense.’” Alan Feduccia, Professor of biology at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, “News Notes”. Geotimes. April 1993: p. 6 (YOU CREATIONIST! ALAN’S A WEIRDO CREATIONIST EVERYONE! DON’T BELIEVE HIS LIES! WATCH *SNICKER SNARK*, I BET HE’S GONNA QUOTE A HOST OF BIBLE VERSES AS A RESPONSE! WATCH EVERYONE. NANNY NANNY BOO BOO ALAN I KNOW UR A CREATIONIST BUT WHAT AM I! HAH I GOT YOU NOW, YOU CAN’T QOUTE THE BIBLE ALAN CUZ I MADE FUN OF IT AND SAID I HATED IT HAH!)

23. “Many animals which are well-known and accepted were once controversial—or at least ‘unexpected’ [BY DARWINISTS] Some of the more interesting of these cryptozoological precedents are:

* The gorilla, largest of all the primates, discovered in Central Africa in 1847;

* Baird’s tapir, discovered in Central America in 1863;

* The giant panda, discovered in China in 1869, but not collected alive until 1936;

* Przewalski’s horse, discovered in Mongolia in 1881;

* The mountain gorilla, a subspecies, discovered in East Africa in 1902;

* The okapi, a fossil giraffid, discovered in Zaire in 1901;

* The pygmy chimpanzee, described in 1929, but not brought back to Europe from Zaire
until the late 1930’s;

* The coelacanth, a 6-foot Mesozoic fish (a true ”living fossil”), discovered in South Africa
in 1938;

* The Chacoan peccary, a Pleistocene fossil form, discovered alive in Paraguay in 1975;

* Megamouth, a 15-foot shark, representing a completely new species, genus, and family,

24. “Insect resistance to a pesticide was first reported in 1947 for the Housefly (Musca domestica) with respect to DDT. Since then resistance to one or more pesticides has been reported in at least 225 species of insects and other arthropods. The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.” – Francisco J. Ayala. “The Mechanisms of Evolution”, Scientific American, Sept. 1978, p. 65 (Francisco is a creationist everyone! Don’t believe him! And you can trust the Scientific American, becuz, becuz, well Dawdler said it’s American! That’s why! And obviously it’s just a creationist propaganda tool! Like Dawdler says, you can’t trust any Americans! They are all creationist and not scientists, they are all stupid losers!)

25. “Scientists at the University of Alberta have revived bacteria from members of the historic Franklin expedition who mysteriously perished in the Arctic nearly 150 years ago. Not only are the six strains of bacteria almost certainly the oldest ever revived, says medical microbiologist Dr. Kinga Kowalewska-Grochowska, Three of them also happen to be resistant to antibiotics… In this case, the antibiotics clindamycin and cefoxitin, both of which developed more than a century after the men died, were among those used.” –
Ed Struzik, Dr. Kinga Kowalewska-Grochowska, “Ancient bacteria revived”, Sunday Herald, 16 Sept. 1990 (What’s ur point huh liars?! HUH! ARE YOU CREATIONISTS! YES YOU ARE! DAWDLER SAID SO! NOW GO QUOTE SOME BIBLE VERSES!)

26. “Darwin calculated that at the rate of one baby elephant per breeding couple every 10 years, starting with a single pair, there would be 15 million elephants in only 500 years.”

27. “But the reports of Eve’s death may have been greatly exaggerated. Indeed, no one argues with the idea that all modern humans inherited their mitochondrial DNA from one common female ancestor. But what is in dispute is the hypothesis first put forth in 1987 by molecular anthropologist Allan Wilson of University of California, Berkeley who claimed to know Eve’s age and whereabouts-that she lived about 200,000 years ago in Africa.”

28. American Atheists, today, has demanded that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission modify its newly issued regulations and guidelines to include protection for Atheists against religious harassment in the workplace. These demands include the following:
(1) The physical work place, itself, should be religion-free, that is without religious radio programs, signs, framed mottos, pictures, poems, calendars, ornaments, jewelry, brochures, crucifixes, Bibles or religious literature, and religious notices (on shared communications boards). – “American Atheists” Press Release, For release: May 2, 1994 (LIEEEEEEEES!!!! ATHEISTS DON’T HATE RELIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGION!!!!! WE JUST HAVE NO BELIEFS! WHY WON’T YOU BELIEVE USSSSSSS????!!!!)

29. “One interesting idea put forward in 1962 supposes that the evolution of those flowering plants was followed by the first appearance of the butterflies and moths… The caterpillars of butterflies and moths feed almost entirely on plants: today their numbers are kept down by natural enemies, notably birds, but when the caterpillars first appeared on the scene the birds had not yet realized how good they were to eat. For some time, therefore, the caterpillar population increased without check. They ate so much plant food that none remained for the plant-eating dinosaurs; the plant-eating dinosaurs died of starvation, and so the meat-eating dinosaurs which preyed on them also without food.”
Alan Charig, “A New Look At The Dinosaurs”, pp. 150-151

“On the other hand, they may have eaten too much and died of overeating! A further possibility is that there were too many meat-eating dinosaurs; they ate all the plant-eaters and then themselves died of hunger. One popular idea is that the little mammals of the Cretaceous were very fond of dinosaur eggs and ate so many of them that the dinosaurs died out.

It has sometimes been suggested that the dinosaurs were poisoned…”
“Other causes put forward include parasites, diseases, slipped discs, shrinking brain and greater stupidity, over-specialization and inability to change…”
“The latest idea in 1982 is that the gradual warming of the earth led to premature cataract in the eyes of the dinosaurs; they eventually became blind and perished before they were old enough to reproduce.” – Alan Charig, “A New Look At The Dinosaurs”, p. 151 (What!?!?! I THOUGHT IT WAS A METEOR THAT HIT THE DINOSAURS, AND LIKE, THEY DIED N STUFF!!!!??? ALAN MUST BE A CREATIONIST!!!! DON’T LISTEN TO HIM HE’S JUST TRYING TO MAKE US DARWINISTS LOOK STUPID AND CONFUSED AND LIKE WE’RE JUST MAKING STUFF UP SO WE DON’T HAVE TO LISTEN TO THE BIBLE!!!)

30. “Among the even less likely causes suggested for the death of the dinosaurs are poison gases, volcanic dust, meteorites, comets, sunspots, God’s will,mass suicide (like lemmings!) and wars. Utterly ridiculous is the idea that all the dinosaurs were killed off by cavemen… The last three causes that we shall mention are raids by little green hunters in flying saucers, lack of even standing room for the dinosaurs in Noah’s Ark, and sheer boredom with their prehistoric world.” – Alan Charig, “A New Look At The Dinosaurs”, p. 151 – (SHUT UP ALAN SHUT UP! I CAN’T HEAR YOU NANNY NANNY BOO BOO UR A STUPID CREATIONIST WEIRDO!)

31. "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." – Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127 (YOU CREATIONIST! STEPHEN IS A CREATIONIST EVERYONE! SHUN HIM! INSULT HIM! HAHAHA STEPHEN IS DUMB! YOU HIGHEST ORDER OF A WHACK JOB! UR NOT EVOLVED!HAH HAH EVERYONE STEPHEN ISN’T EVOLVVVED. WE DARWINISTS ARE MORE EVOLVED THEN HIM! HE’S JUST A, HAHA – I’M SO FUNNY, LISTEN TO THIS: A HIGHEST ORDER WHACK JOB EVERYONE! HAHAHA I’M SO CLEVER AND COOL, MY JOKES ARE SO COOL AND NEAT AND SMARTY! I’M A COOL PERSON, DEFINITELY NOT A DUMB EMPTY-HEADED NERD LOSER UNFUNNY IDIOT WHO CALLS HIMSELF "DAWDLER"!)

32. "Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." – Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216 (LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!)

33. "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that ‘a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein’." – Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in "Hoyle on Evolution". Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105 (SHUT UP YOU CREATIONIST!)

34. "Echoing the criticism made of his father’s habilis skulls, he added that Lucy’s skull was so incomplete that most of it was ‘imagination made of plaster of Paris’, thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to." – Referring to comments made by Richard Leakey (Director of National Museums of Kenya) in The Weekend Australian, 7-8 May 1983, Magazine, p. 3 (RICHARD IS A CREATIONIST! DON’T BELIEVE HIM!)

35. "The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, … the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. …but ever since Darwin’s work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man." – John Reader, photo-journalist and author of "Missing Links", "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" – New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802 (NOOOO! NOT NEW SCIENTIST AGAIN! UR SUPPOSED TO BE A BRITISH DARWINIST MAGAZINE, NOT A CREATIONIST WEIRDO MAGAZINE! JUST ASK BEN DAWDLER!!!! DAMNIT NOOOO, I’M MELTING! MEEEEEEEEEELTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTING!!!)

Where is the wise? Where the scribe? Where the lawyer of this world? Did God not make the wisdom of thisworld foolish? For since in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom did not know God, God was pleased through the foolishness of preaching to save the ones believing.
And since Jews ask for a sign, and Greeks seek wisdom, we, on the other hand, preach Christ crucified (truly an offense to Jews, and foolishness to Greeks) – 1 Corinthians 1:20-23. And you sure let us millions of Christians know how much the Bible offends you, so much so you felt you had to insult me into not using it you easily annoyed, weak-minded, absurd dummy.


They set a net for my steps; my soul was bowed down. They dug a pit in my way, but they have fallen into it themselves. – Psalm 57:6

For the sin of their mouths, the words of their lips, let them be trapped in their pride. For the cursing and lies that they utter, consume them in wrath; consume them till they are no more, that they may know that God rules over Jacob to the ends of the earth. Each evening they come back, howling like dogs and prowling about the city. They wander about for food and growl if they do not get their fill. But I will sing of your strength; I will sing aloud of your steadfast love in the morning. For you have been to me a fortress and a refuge in the day of my distress. O my Strength, I will sing praises to you, for you, O God, are my fortress, the God who shows me steadfast love. – Psalm 59:12-17

Did that host of verses hurt your feelings? Are you reeling in pain, you weak-minded moron? Why moron? Why moron who pretends the Bible has done no good, and contains no truths, and that merely quoting it is a bad thing? Oh, is it juz cuz you said so? Well if Dawdler said it I believe it! Not. Don’t worry dog who hates hearing God’s word, which has never been outsold, outspread, or outdefeated by sin-lovers like you: you’ll get your fill on Judgment Day, and your time-wasting money-wasting delusions will be crushed once and for all to your eternal shame.


Looking forward to more childish boasting (like speaking for the world let alone 60+ million Calvinists as if they were atheist Darwinists who believe in Global Warming), nerdy unfunny emotionally immaturity, bitterness-revealing, insecurity-about-your-penis-revealing, jokes, more accusations and proof of global warming, macroevolution and "no God"  based on insults, mere questioning, expressions of your dumb doubt (ur special little worthless stinky feelings and that of other gullibles like yourself), opinions, mere claims, and psuedoscience, more ranting about the earth being flat, bleeding yourself as a cure-all, how hot it is right now during winterand how melting ice in Antarctica is ruining your life and making you oh so angry, contradictions, rehashed parrotted defeated "evidence" for "evolution" from 10 to 108 years ago give or take a few ever-changing figures of billion imaginary years ago (cuz ur still "learning"), and how you have no beliefs becuz ur an atheist. Cheers you time-wasting moron. Hur hur, isn’t me funny, cuz me said "Cheers" to you. See, me is smart because me used original sarcasm, me invented sarcasm "Cheers" meself, me from Birtain so me smarter too, now u must believe me is smart n’ u dumb cuz ur American n creationist. Me is Dawdler, me smart. Hur hur.