The Church And The Origins Of Western Civilization

[PoliticalChic]

And PC is so deep in her own mess she must think it is raining butt holes.

Western civilization, built on Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian values, which have changed mightily in more than 2000 years. We no longer crucify people (though ISIS does), enfranchised minorities and women, expanded civil liberties, moved into the 21st century recognizing orientations, and so forth

The far right conservative Christians opposed all of that other than crucifixion perhaps.

"... she must think it is raining butt holes."

Well....how else could you have gotten here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Militant secularists vs. religious extremists is a battle that injures America.

We don't need that crap from either side.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Militant secularists vs. religious extremists is a battle that injures America.

We don't need that crap from either side.

Let's set the record straight.

1. You have the well deserved reputation of being a fool and a liar.

2. Like a little yelping Chihuahua, you run behind me, nipping at my ankles.....

You do your best try to be recognized, to make some outlandish and false points....and fail as miserably as you do in every other endeavor in your sad life.



In short, you hide stupid like a bikini hides an extra 45 pounds.

 

[Unkotare]

Christianity played a role in the early development of many aspects of Western Civilization, including science. Now it needs to get out of the way and stop holding us back.

That's like saying your legs played a role in your growing up, but now you need to cut them off so they will "stop holding you back."

 

[September]

Oh gawd.

Yet another thread of pc's goofy cut and paste "quotes", quote-mined from Harun Yahya.

I am certain that you and I both fervently hope for the day when you develop the ability to actually discuss the material that I post, and that you no longer have to use the same tired cliches over and over.

Best of luck.

I am certain that both you and I are aware that the entirety of your discussion is not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".

Your silly "quotes" are the definition of tired cliches.

So cute...I refer to 'cliches' and you pick right up on that and repeat it.
So....I do teach you.



"...not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".(sic...period belongs inside the quotation marks.)

So....you are unable to read?

That must be why you are never able to comment on the specifics that I post....much less the unassailable conclusions.

If you were honest, (not that I'm accusing you of being honest), you would acknowledge that the specifics you post are nothing more specific than silly "quotes" you quote-mine from Harun Yahya.

So.... We can agree you're incapable of actually composing a coherent argument.

Poor Hollie.....tsk., tsk., tsk.

Still no reference to anything in the thread.....

Help me with this....for clarity....are you a liar, or simply an imbecile?

You poor, dear.

You always get angry and reactive when your cutting and pasting is ridiculed for being an exercise in intellectual Sloth. However, understanding your limitations, it's even worse when you try to string words together into sentences.

Still not a word about anything posted?

Obviously you aren't a fan of mine, but it is increasingly clear that the reason is that you cannot deal with my postings.

But you can prove me wrong.....just challenge anything I've posted: let's see a cogent response.




Waiting.

Prove you wrong?

You did nothing but cut and paste a hodgepodge of "quotes" that you scoured from sources as flimsy as wiki. If the authors of the "quotes" were available to defend them, that would be another matter.

What we're left with are your edited and parsed "quotes" which you are hopeless to defend.

Waiting.... for you to scour Harun Yahya for more silliness.

C'mon....you can't be as stupid as you appear......never any comment on the material, the ideas, the points made in the posts?

But you can prove me wrong.....just challenge anything I've posted: let's see a cogent response.



Still waiting.

C'mon. You really are that stupid. It's comically tragic that you dump these silly threads in multiple forums but you're unable to actually offer any coherent comment on what you're cutting and pasting.

There's really nothing to challenge when you spammers do nothing more than scour the web for "quotes" that are edited, parsed and out of context. That appeals to people such as yourself who are absent any ability to offer a coherent comment on what they're cutting and pasting.

I must admit that I get a kick out of revealing what a dunce you are.


But you can prove me wrong.....just challenge anything I've posted: let's see a cogent response.



Still waiting.

Let's see you provide some more cut and paste spam.




Waiting.

What??? You still haven't been able to come up with any comment on the posts?


I know you'd love to be able to respond....you just don't have the ability.

Let me put some more together on this theme, and give you another chance....

Now....gear up!

Oh my. Are you scouring Harun Yahya for more edited and parsed "quotes" you can spam this thread with?

Ashtara wuz hurr
​

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC cries and denies, lies and sighs, and then blames everyone else.

She does her “best try to be recognized, to make some outlandish and false points....and fail as miserably as she does in every other endeavor in her sad life.”

She couldn’t get it right in school, so now she blogs in her little apartment with the kids and wonders why she is so unhappy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC cries and denies, lies and sighs, and then blames everyone else.

She does her “best try to be recognized, to make some outlandish and false points....and fail as miserably as she does in every other endeavor in her sad life.”

She couldn’t get it right in school, so now she blogs in her little apartment with the kids and wonders why she is so unhappy.

The gates are down, the lights are flashing, but the train isn't coming.

Not one single thing in that post is correct!

Amazing!

But....consistent with everything else in your sad life.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Christianity played a role in the early development of many aspects of Western Civilization, including science. Now it needs to get out of the way and stop holding us back.

That's like saying your legs played a role in your growing up, but now you need to cut them off so they will "stop holding you back."

A better analogy is Christianity is like training wheels on our bike, but we're ready to fly.

 

[Unkotare]

Christianity played a role in the early development of many aspects of Western Civilization, including science. Now it needs to get out of the way and stop holding us back.

That's like saying your legs played a role in your growing up, but now you need to cut them off so they will "stop holding you back."

A better analogy is Christianity is like training wheels on our bike, but we're ready to fly.

That would be a false analogy. Christianity is the frame of the bicycle. Only a fool thinks he is such a great rider that he doesn't need it anymore.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Christianity played a role in the early development of many aspects of Western Civilization, including science. Now it needs to get out of the way and stop holding us back.

That's like saying your legs played a role in your growing up, but now you need to cut them off so they will "stop holding you back."

A better analogy is Christianity is like training wheels on our bike, but we're ready to fly.

That would be a false analogy. Christianity is the frame of the bicycle. Only a fool thinks he is such a great rider that he doesn't need it anymore.

Unless he who you call a fool is off the bike and ready to board the rocket - to beleaguer this analogy further.

 

[Unkotare]

Christianity played a role in the early development of many aspects of Western Civilization, including science. Now it needs to get out of the way and stop holding us back.

That's like saying your legs played a role in your growing up, but now you need to cut them off so they will "stop holding you back."

A better analogy is Christianity is like training wheels on our bike, but we're ready to fly.

That would be a false analogy. Christianity is the frame of the bicycle. Only a fool thinks he is such a great rider that he doesn't need it anymore.

Unless he who you call a fool is off the bike and ready to board the rocket - to beleaguer this analogy further.

Civilization is hardly on a "rocket," champ. Take a look around.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Christianity played a role in the early development of many aspects of Western Civilization, including science. Now it needs to get out of the way and stop holding us back.

That's like saying your legs played a role in your growing up, but now you need to cut them off so they will "stop holding you back."

A better analogy is Christianity is like training wheels on our bike, but we're ready to fly.

That would be a false analogy. Christianity is the frame of the bicycle. Only a fool thinks he is such a great rider that he doesn't need it anymore.

Unless he who you call a fool is off the bike and ready to board the rocket - to beleaguer this analogy further.

Civilization is hardly on a "rocket," champ. Take a look around.

You mean ISIS, a Christian right that still mourns over what the 60s did to the 50s, arguments from religious non-scientists about science, religious extremism covered up or dismissed by religious moderates, medical research hindered by religious morality, the protest by a loud sect of the religious against an equitable society...?

Yeah, maybe you're right...

 

[turzovka]

If you were honest, (not that I'm accusing you of being honest), you would acknowledge that the specifics you post are nothing more specific than silly "quotes" you quote-mine from Harun Yahya.

So.... We can agree you're incapable of actually composing a coherent argument.

Show me a poster who brings out the "quote mining" charge for a defense, and I will you a poster who has no defense.

Excellent post and topic Political Chic. Most of the opponents here are living on embellished claims in history that are a shadow of the greater truth. Such as, Christianity holds back science, Catholic Church denigrates women, and is behind all the witch burnings, et al.

Worst of all, these opponents are so dull witted where if they can find sins within individuals of an organization or an ideology, to them that now proves the whole idea, movement, claims, and actions have to be false as well. How lame are such arguments, especially when one realizes we are all sinners. I guess liberals and secular humanists have not come to that realization of themselves yet, as well?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Christianity played a role in the early development of many aspects of Western Civilization, including science. Now it needs to get out of the way and stop holding us back.

That's like saying your legs played a role in your growing up, but now you need to cut them off so they will "stop holding you back."

A better analogy is Christianity is like training wheels on our bike, but we're ready to fly.

That would be a false analogy. Christianity is the frame of the bicycle. Only a fool thinks he is such a great rider that he doesn't need it anymore.

Unless he who you call a fool is off the bike and ready to board the rocket - to beleaguer this analogy further.

Two points emerge....1. You hate religion, and 2. You don't know what you're talking about.



3. Prior to the Enlightenment, people rarely considered science to be antagonistic to religion. Most of the major figures who started modern science were devout Christians: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, Newton….

a. In 2003, sociologist Rodney Stark identified 52 “stars” who launched the scientific revolution, and discovered that all but two were devout Christians.(The two skeptics were Edmund Halley and Paracelsus). Stark, “For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery,” chapter two.

4. "According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."
Scientists and Belief Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Christianity played a role in the early development of many aspects of Western Civilization, including science. Now it needs to get out of the way and stop holding us back.

That's like saying your legs played a role in your growing up, but now you need to cut them off so they will "stop holding you back."

A better analogy is Christianity is like training wheels on our bike, but we're ready to fly.

That would be a false analogy. Christianity is the frame of the bicycle. Only a fool thinks he is such a great rider that he doesn't need it anymore.

Unless he who you call a fool is off the bike and ready to board the rocket - to beleaguer this analogy further.

Two points emerge....1. You hate religion, and 2. You don't know what you're talking about.



3. Prior to the Enlightenment, people rarely considered science to be antagonistic to religion. Most of the major figures who started modern science were devout Christians: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, Newton….

a. In 2003, sociologist Rodney Stark identified 52 “stars” who launched the scientific revolution, and discovered that all but two were devout Christians.(The two skeptics were Edmund Halley and Paracelsus). Stark, “For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery,” chapter two.

4. "According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."
Scientists and Belief Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project

I don't "hate" religion, Do you hate atheists? You seem to think atheism is evil.

Like I said in my first response on this thread, Christianity played a role in the development of many aspects Western Civilization, including science.

Now religions need to stay out of the way of the scientists doing science, including religious scientists doing real science.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's like saying your legs played a role in your growing up, but now you need to cut them off so they will "stop holding you back."

A better analogy is Christianity is like training wheels on our bike, but we're ready to fly.

That would be a false analogy. Christianity is the frame of the bicycle. Only a fool thinks he is such a great rider that he doesn't need it anymore.

Unless he who you call a fool is off the bike and ready to board the rocket - to beleaguer this analogy further.

Two points emerge....1. You hate religion, and 2. You don't know what you're talking about.



3. Prior to the Enlightenment, people rarely considered science to be antagonistic to religion. Most of the major figures who started modern science were devout Christians: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, Newton….

a. In 2003, sociologist Rodney Stark identified 52 “stars” who launched the scientific revolution, and discovered that all but two were devout Christians.(The two skeptics were Edmund Halley and Paracelsus). Stark, “For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery,” chapter two.

4. "According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."
Scientists and Belief Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project

I don't "hate" religion, Do you hate atheists? You seem to think atheism is evil.

Like I said in my first response on this thread, Christianity played a role in the development of many aspects Western Civilization, including science.

Now religions need to stay out of the way of the scientists doing science, including religious scientists doing real science.

You really have no grasp about the subject.

1. Science without religion is deadly. Without religion, science has no restrictions in terms of the value of human life.

a. Even in the 19th century, as religious conviction waned, the warnings were there. Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’

2. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients. Would they do so based on their whim?

a. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland




3. Sam Harris, in “Letters to a Christian Nation,” writes that “qualms” about stem-cell research are “obscene,” because they are “morally indefensible” because they represent mere “faith-based irrationality.” Can you say ‘slippery-slope’?

a." Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting? How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland?"
David Berlinski



Do you begin to see the abysmal stupidity of "Now religions need to stay out of the way of the scientists doing science"?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

A better analogy is Christianity is like training wheels on our bike, but we're ready to fly.

That would be a false analogy. Christianity is the frame of the bicycle. Only a fool thinks he is such a great rider that he doesn't need it anymore.

Unless he who you call a fool is off the bike and ready to board the rocket - to beleaguer this analogy further.

Two points emerge....1. You hate religion, and 2. You don't know what you're talking about.



3. Prior to the Enlightenment, people rarely considered science to be antagonistic to religion. Most of the major figures who started modern science were devout Christians: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, Newton….

a. In 2003, sociologist Rodney Stark identified 52 “stars” who launched the scientific revolution, and discovered that all but two were devout Christians.(The two skeptics were Edmund Halley and Paracelsus). Stark, “For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery,” chapter two.

4. "According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."
Scientists and Belief Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project

I don't "hate" religion, Do you hate atheists? You seem to think atheism is evil.

Like I said in my first response on this thread, Christianity played a role in the development of many aspects Western Civilization, including science.

Now religions need to stay out of the way of the scientists doing science, including religious scientists doing real science.

You really have no grasp about the subject.

1. Science without religion is deadly. Without religion, science has no restrictions in terms of the value of human life.

a. Even in the 19th century, as religious conviction waned, the warnings were there. Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’

2. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients. Would they do so based on their whim?

a. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland




3. Sam Harris, in “Letters to a Christian Nation,” writes that “qualms” about stem-cell research are “obscene,” because they are “morally indefensible” because they represent mere “faith-based irrationality.” Can you say ‘slippery-slope’?

a." Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting? How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland?"
David Berlinski



Do you begin to see the abysmal stupidity of "Now religions need to stay out of the way of the scientists doing science"?

Do you truly think that Christians hold a monopoly on morality in addition to being absolute in their morality? Are atheists from all cultural backgrounds equally immoral?

Is any human system perfect? Your link to a pro-life, and therefore partisan, website cites no studies. You are prolife. So don't get an abortion. However, the number of lives that could be saved using stem cells greatly outweighs the number of abortions. Which side of the moral balance hangs lower? You don't currently want to be euthanized. Others do. To stop them sounds like big government to me...

 

[PoliticalChic]

That would be a false analogy. Christianity is the frame of the bicycle. Only a fool thinks he is such a great rider that he doesn't need it anymore.

Unless he who you call a fool is off the bike and ready to board the rocket - to beleaguer this analogy further.

Two points emerge....1. You hate religion, and 2. You don't know what you're talking about.



3. Prior to the Enlightenment, people rarely considered science to be antagonistic to religion. Most of the major figures who started modern science were devout Christians: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, Newton….

a. In 2003, sociologist Rodney Stark identified 52 “stars” who launched the scientific revolution, and discovered that all but two were devout Christians.(The two skeptics were Edmund Halley and Paracelsus). Stark, “For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery,” chapter two.

4. "According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."
Scientists and Belief Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project

I don't "hate" religion, Do you hate atheists? You seem to think atheism is evil.

Like I said in my first response on this thread, Christianity played a role in the development of many aspects Western Civilization, including science.

Now religions need to stay out of the way of the scientists doing science, including religious scientists doing real science.

You really have no grasp about the subject.

1. Science without religion is deadly. Without religion, science has no restrictions in terms of the value of human life.

a. Even in the 19th century, as religious conviction waned, the warnings were there. Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’

2. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients. Would they do so based on their whim?

a. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland




3. Sam Harris, in “Letters to a Christian Nation,” writes that “qualms” about stem-cell research are “obscene,” because they are “morally indefensible” because they represent mere “faith-based irrationality.” Can you say ‘slippery-slope’?

a." Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting? How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland?"
David Berlinski



Do you begin to see the abysmal stupidity of "Now religions need to stay out of the way of the scientists doing science"?

Do you truly think that Christians hold a monopoly on morality in addition to being absolute in their morality? Are atheists from all cultural backgrounds equally immoral?

Is any human system perfect? Your link to a pro-life, and therefore partisan, website cites no studies. You are prolife. So don't get an abortion. However, the number of lives that could be saved using stem cells greatly outweighs the number of abortions. Which side of the moral balance hangs lower? You don't currently want to be euthanized. Others do. To stop them sounds like big government to me...

"... the number of lives that could be saved using stem cells greatly outweighs the number of abortions."



Earlier I wasted the phrase "abysmal stupidity."

It should have been reserved for this post.


It is clear that you have all the depth of bumper-stickers, as is usually found in religion haters.

No one objects to stem cell research......no one......if it is the successful variant, adult stem cell or tissue research.
It is destroying embyos to which many object.

"Many" meaning those with a concern for human life.




1. "Somatic stem cells, such as blood-forming stem cells in bone marrow (called hematopoietic stem cells, or HSCs), are currently the only type of stem cell commonly used to treat human diseases. Doctors have been transferring HSCs in bone marrow transplants for over 40 years. More advanced techniques for collecting, or "harvesting," HSCs are now used in order to treat leukemia, lymphoma and several inherited blood disorders. The clinical potential of somatic stem cells has also been demonstrated in the treatment of other human diseases that include diabetes and advanced kidney cancer. However, these newer uses involved studies with a very limited number of patients."
How are stem cells currently used to treat disease NYSTEM



2. "There are currently no approved treatments using embryonic stem cells. The first human trial was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in January 2009.[14]However, the human trial was not initiated until October 13, 2010 in Atlanta for spinal injury victims. On November 14, 2011 the company conducting the trial announced that it will discontinue further development of its stem cell programs.[15]ES cells, being pluripotent cells, require specific signals for correct differentiation—if injected directly into another body, ES cells will differentiate into many different types of cells, causing ateratoma. Differentiating ES cells into usable cells while avoiding transplant rejection are just a few of the hurdles that embryonic stem cell researchers still face."
Stem cell - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


3 . "While the potency and success of adult stem cell treatments are becoming evident, treatments using embryonic stem cells have not produced any clinical successes. Rather, embryonic stem cell treatments tend to create tumors in numerous animal studies. The public should ponder these issues and ask why the media do not cover such results. In a world with limited funds for research, why are we arguing about unproven and often dangerous embryonic stem cell treatments when treatments using adult stem cells are today producing real results for real patients?"
Adult Stem Cell Success

 

[sealybobo]

Oh gawd.

Yet another thread of pc's goofy cut and paste "quotes", quote-mined from Harun Yahya.

I am certain that you and I both fervently hope for the day when you develop the ability to actually discuss the material that I post, and that you no longer have to use the same tired cliches over and over.

Best of luck.

I am certain that both you and I are aware that the entirety of your discussion is not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".

Your silly "quotes" are the definition of tired cliches.

So cute...I refer to 'cliches' and you pick right up on that and repeat it.
So....I do teach you.



"...not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".(sic...period belongs inside the quotation marks.)

So....you are unable to read?

That must be why you are never able to comment on the specifics that I post....much less the unassailable conclusions.

If you were honest, (not that I'm accusing you of being honest), you would acknowledge that the specifics you post are nothing more specific than silly "quotes" you quote-mine from Harun Yahya.

So.... We can agree you're incapable of actually composing a coherent argument.

Poor Hollie.....tsk., tsk., tsk.

Still no reference to anything in the thread.....

Help me with this....for clarity....are you a liar, or simply an imbecile?

Cat fight. And for the record, I find Hollie very intelligent and well thought out. Could it be you don't like her calling bullshit on your bullshit?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I am certain that you and I both fervently hope for the day when you develop the ability to actually discuss the material that I post, and that you no longer have to use the same tired cliches over and over.

Best of luck.

I am certain that both you and I are aware that the entirety of your discussion is not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".

Your silly "quotes" are the definition of tired cliches.

So cute...I refer to 'cliches' and you pick right up on that and repeat it.
So....I do teach you.



"...not discussion at all, but cutting and pasting "quotes".(sic...period belongs inside the quotation marks.)

So....you are unable to read?

That must be why you are never able to comment on the specifics that I post....much less the unassailable conclusions.

If you were honest, (not that I'm accusing you of being honest), you would acknowledge that the specifics you post are nothing more specific than silly "quotes" you quote-mine from Harun Yahya.

So.... We can agree you're incapable of actually composing a coherent argument.

Poor Hollie.....tsk., tsk., tsk.

Still no reference to anything in the thread.....

Help me with this....for clarity....are you a liar, or simply an imbecile?

Cat fight. And for the record, I find Hollie very intelligent and well thought out. Could it be you don't like her calling bullshit on your bullshit?

" I find Hollie very intelligent..."

Well....since she is never able to comment on any of the material posted, and merely repeats the same phrases ad infinitum....

...that pretty well identifies you as a moron.