Re: R. Forrest: common rat
- From: "Rolf" <rolf@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:47:52 +0200
"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
On Jun 29, 3:23 pm, snex <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 29, 5:13 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Richard Forrest has a nasty habit of calling Creationists liars.
Forrest speaking about S. Pitman:
"So basically, he's just a typically dishonest creationist who
dogmatically refuses to learn anything and thinks that if he writes
stuff that looks scientific, he can fool other creationists into
thinking that he has valid arguments."
Forrest speaking about me:
"Ray, after the persistent dishonestly you demonstrate on this forum,
and no doubt elsewhere, perhaps you should consider if you should
your face here."
We also know that Forrest routinely claims that lies persist rampantly
on Creationist websites.
We know Richard Forrest is an Atheist-evolutionist, and we know that
he actually believes apes morphed into men over the course of millions
of years. He also believes that a magnificent nature shows no signs of
Intelligence but was produced by something that has no mind. Forrest
believes crude Stone Age tools and shelters are "evidence" of early
quasi-ape men but the arm and hand that supposedly crafted these tools
is not the product of design. Forrest thinks bat sonar and
echolocation was produced incrementally, leaving the flying creature
unable to conduct its business in its natural habitat of lightless
caves, until a blind and mindless natural selection got around to
completing the task. And the human eye, Forrest believes - the most
obvious irreducible complex organ of all - was also formed
incrementally with no Designer involved.
We know for a fact that the Stone Age never existed. Genesis says Cain
built a "city" and not some A frame mud hut with a rock tied to a
piece of wood. Man was created ultra-intelligent. The Great Pyramid -
the only true World Wonder - from top to bottom; inside and out;
proves this claim and falisfies the existence of a Stone Age. We know
it is impossible for a sonar apparatus to have been built
incrementally by something that has no mind or consciousness. And we
know the human eye is formed in the womb (and not over milions of
years) by wondrous mechanisms invented by God.
In view of these facts I feel no insult whatsoever in being called a
liar by Richard Forrest. His disapproval is the best endorsement of my
honesty. Anytime a person who believes what he believes, and denies
what he denies, thinks I am a liar, this is the very best evidence
that I am not. Common sense says persons who believe the things that
Forrest believes should not be going around calling anyone a liar.
ancient books are not evidence of anything other than the fact that
people wrote books a long time ago.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I am well aware of the tenets of conventional Atheist ideology - what
is your point?
Are you too stupid to get event that point? A book is evidence that people
write or wrote books, period. When what the book says is bollocks, bollocks
is what it is. A book is not, repeat: IS NOT evidence. You are blind and
cannot see evidence. You only see the delusions roaming wild in your own
- Prev by Date: Re: R. Forrest: common rat
- Next by Date: Re: The Confusion of Kenneth Miller
- Previous by thread: Re: R. Forrest: common rat
- Next by thread: Re: R. Forrest: common rat