Nathan Bond's TART Remarks

Religion: Respect? Ridicule!

A little bit of religion is a good thing

with 141 comments

11 September 2011. It’s the 10th anniversary of that day of which Rabbi Brad Hirschfeld said:

“Religion drove those planes into those buildings, it’s amazing how good religion is at mobilizing people to do awful, murderous things. There is this dark side to it, and anyone who loves religious experience, including me, better begin to own that there is a serious shadow side to this thing.”

We have all experienced the threat firsthand on that fateful day in September 2001 when the screams of “Allah Akbar” were drowned by the thunderous impact of passenger jets crashing into the Twin Towers. We have all of us lived the terror, immediate or threatening, of continuing mutual reactionary consequences, of “infidels”, on both sides of the divide, brutally murdered, of children bleeding to death in Afghanistan and Iraq, of public unrest in protest of mere cartoons. But it is preferable, required even; better, the done thing, to be tolerant, to grin and bear, rather than to affront a believer’s sentiment by a tart remark. Rubbish! Shall we be tolerant? No, a thousand times no! It is feckless to be tolerant.

Contributing writer at TIME, Amy Sullivan, writes in Articles of Faith: The Importance of Understanding Religion in a Post-9/11 World, that “the wishful thinking of the neo-atheists ignores the fact that a little religion often does a lot of good.”

A little bit of drugs also does a lot of good.

But the benefits are meticulously monitored an controlled.

Prescriptions by trained specialists are required to deliver the “lot of good” of “a little drugs”.

Religion.

“To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used”, wrote Richard Dawkins in Religion’s misguided missiles.

The world will be a much better place without reified mythology, no matter how cute the stories are.

I give you the city Jos, where religious slaughtering continues unabated.

Religion. People, said Voltaire, who believe absurdities will commit atrocities. Period.

There is no place for religion in this day and age.

Not even “a little bit”.

Written by Nathan Bond

September 11, 2011 at 13:40

Posted in Religion must go!

141 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Lost Soul, you don’t seem so very lost to me as I agree with you.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 7, 2012 at 23:14

  2. In die 80’s was daar n omie in swart pak klere wat in die middestad van pretoria rondgeloop het. Hy sou skielik hier agter jou op die sypaaidjie bulder – SEEK JEEESSUUUSS!!!! – Piet Stassen herhinner my nogal baie aan hom. Is julle familie van mekaar prof?

    Shazee

    January 7, 2012 at 10:34

  3. 1. LESSON IN PROFANITY 1

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].PROFANITY

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].

    2. LESSON IN PROFANITY 2

    Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].

    Piet Stassen

    October 21, 2011 at 22:36

  4. Talk about the purblind leading the lamebrains: SOUTH AFRICA: Anglicans to help train Pentecostals.

    It’ll be interesting to see how all of this works out, if at all. Some rather looming fundamental doctrinal divergences hang like a dark cloud over this initiative. These so-called Crushtians can be just too entertaining for words sometimes. Will Anglicans become more vocal or will the charismatics tone down their idiotic clamour? Perhaps both? The most likely outcome is that it won’t work out in the long run and they’ll go their separate ways again, demonstrating their status as self-satisfied dooses vying for first place in morondom.

    Con-Tester

    October 17, 2011 at 09:45

  5. Bible-based common sense” is an oxymoron — and a hilarious one at that.

    Con-Tester

    October 15, 2011 at 13:54

  6. Satan!! Dagsê.

    Wie anners? 🙂🙂🙂

    Daan Van der Merwe

    October 13, 2011 at 05:01

  7. God gave us common sense and The Bible to test it when in doubt.

    Christians shouldn’t be suspicious of everything we hear from the pulpit. We just need to use Bible-based common sense. We should all be like the Bereans of Acts 17, never taking any new teaching at the word of the speaker, but rather using Scripture to verify anything that seems to conflict with sound biblical doctrine.

    ‘these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so’ (Acts 17:11)

    Lost Soul

    October 8, 2011 at 12:42

  8. O fok, Piet Stassen, nog ‘n mal godkoppie op die blog.

    Daan, ek sien jy gesels saam op Vrydenkers. Kan net jy wees.

    Satan

    October 7, 2011 at 20:31

  9. Rodriguez more like.

    Balanced Truths

    October 6, 2011 at 22:12

  10. I think he fell asleep to his own lullabies.

    Con-Tester

    October 5, 2011 at 08:33

  11. Where is oom Piet now? Maybe in the Coocoo’s nest?

    ErickV

    October 5, 2011 at 08:16

  12. Closer to Cat Stevens, but it’s actually Con-Tester — so thanks for the vote of confidence.😉

    Con-Tester

    October 4, 2011 at 15:52

  13. Dylan?

    Malherbe

    October 4, 2011 at 14:45

  14. “Don’t go to Jonestown! Don’t drink the Kool-Aid there! It may look like grape flavour, but it’s actually mind-rape flavour!”

    
    

    😳😥😳

    Con-Tester

    October 4, 2011 at 12:23

  15. Jim Jones was another example, or rather one of the best examples. Oom Piet have the exact same tendancy.
    O shit! Everyone around him must be warned!

    ErickV

    October 4, 2011 at 11:09

  16. Here is the scary part – they are living amongst us. Roaming around unrestrained. Think of the religiosly indoctrinated mind of an Anders Breivik inciting his killing spree.

    Malherbe

    October 4, 2011 at 09:33

  17. Well, common wisdom has it that talking to yourself and losing your sense of humour are powerful indicators of growing lunacy. If this is correct, Piet Stassen should be kept in a rubber room with all sharp objects removed. That means he gets to keep his Holey Babble, what with it being so blunt, pointless and obtuse.

    Con-Tester

    October 4, 2011 at 08:43

  18. Ou Piet is besig om dit regtig te verloor. Is daar nie ‘n manier om hom na Weskoppies toe te verwys nie?
    Ek weet daar was voorheen ‘n wet wat hiervoor voorsiening gemaak het.

    ErickV

    October 4, 2011 at 05:41

  19. 8. LESSON IN PROFANITY 8
    Fuck off.

    Con-Tester

    October 3, 2011 at 20:06

  20. 1. LESSON IN PROFANITY 1

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].PROFANITY

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].

    2. LESSON IN PROFANITY 2

    Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].

    3. LESSON IN PROFANITY 3

    There is none holy as Jehovah, for there is none beside You. Neither is there any rock like our God. Talk no more so very proudly. Remove arrogance out of your mouth, for Jehovah is a God of knowledge, and by Him actions are weighed. [1Samuel 2:2-3].

    4. LESSON IN PROFANITY 4

    The Words of Jehovah are pure Words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.[Psalms 12:6].

    5. LESSON IN PROFANITY 5

    Then those fearing Jehovah spoke together, each man to his neighbor. And Jehovah listened and heard. And a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who feared Jehovah, and for those esteeming His name. “And they shall be Mine”, says Jehovah of Hosts, “for the day that I will make up My treasure. And I will pity them as a man has pity on his son who serves him. Then you shall again see the difference between the righteous and the wicked, between him who serves God, and him who does not serve Him.” [Malachi 3:16].

    6. LESSON IN PROFANITY 6

    Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience.[Ephesians 5:6].

    7. LESSON IN PROFANITY 7

    “Your words have been strong against Me”, says Jehovah. “Yet you say, ‘What have we spoken against You?’ [Malachi 3:13]. “So with your mouth you have boasted against Me, and have multiplied your words against Me. I have heard them.”[Ezekiel 35:13].

    Piet Stassen

    October 3, 2011 at 19:31

  21. ….met oormatige kerrie en rissies saam met pruime.

    Malherbe

    October 3, 2011 at 14:26

  22. Meer besete as ’n kakhuis by ’n pruim partytjie.

    Con-Tester

    October 3, 2011 at 08:14

  23. Invitation To Accept JESUS CHRIST As Lord And Saviour.

    1. THE PROBLEM.

    “For certain men crept in secretly, those having been of old previously written into this condemnation, ungodly ones perverting the grace of our God for unbridled lust, and denying the only Master, God, even our Lord Jesus Christ.” [Jude 1:4].

    2. THE SOLUTION: TO REPENT AND ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST AS SAVIOUR AND LORD.

    “All things are delivered to Me by My Father. And no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son will reveal Him. Come to Me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke on you and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest to your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.” [2Matthew 11:27-30] … “Come now, and let us reason together”, says Jehovah; “though your sins are as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be like wool.” [Isaiah 1:18].

    Invitation Accepted [Signature]………………………………..Date ……………………………………………

    3. THE URGENCY.

    Jesus saves … today! Tomorrow may be too late: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” [Romans 6:23].

    4. THE BLESSING

    “Blessed is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, and has not stood in the way of sinners, and has not sat in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is only in the Law of Jehovah; and in His Law he meditates day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivulets of water that brings forth its fruit in its seasons, and its leaf shall not wither, and all which he does shall be blessed. The wicked are not so, but are like chaff which the wind drives away. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.” [Psalms 1:1-5].

    5. THE REMINDER.

    Jesus reminds us: “I am the door. If anyone enters in by Me, he shall be saved and shall go in and out and find pasture. The thief does not come except to steal and to kill and to destroy. I have come so that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.” [John 10:9-11]. “I have come as a Light into the world, so that whoever believes on Me should not remain in darkness. And if any one hears My Words and does not believe, I do not judge him, for I do not come to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects Me and does not receive My Words has one who judges him; the Word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” [John 12:46-48].

    6. THE PROMISE.

    ‘Behold, He comes with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, and those who pierced Him will see Him, and all the kindreds of the earth will wail because of Him. Even so, Amen.’ “I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending”, says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” [Revelations 1:7-8].

    7. THE GUARANTEE.

    “For it is written, ‘As I live’, says the Lord, ‘every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God.’ So then each one of us will give account concerning himself to God.” [Romans 14:11-12].

    Piet Stassen

    October 3, 2011 at 03:55

  24. Maller as ‘n kolhaas op tik.

    Malherbe

    October 2, 2011 at 22:27

  25. INVITATION to commit ratiocide REJECTED.

    One look at the godiots/religiots/mystiots commenting here should suffice to explain why.

    Con-Tester

    October 2, 2011 at 17:05

  26. Invitation To Accept JESUS CHRIST As Lord And Saviour.

    1. THE PROBLEM.

    “For certain men crept in secretly, those having been of old previously written into this condemnation, ungodly ones perverting the grace of our God for unbridled lust, and denying the only Master, God, even our Lord Jesus Christ.” [Jude 1:4].

    2. THE SOLUTION: TO REPENT AND ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST AS SAVIOUR AND LORD.

    “All things are delivered to Me by My Father. And no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son will reveal Him. Come to Me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke on you and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest to your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.” [2Matthew 11:27-30] … “Come now, and let us reason together”, says Jehovah; “though your sins are as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be like wool.” [Isaiah 1:18].

    Invitation Accepted [Signature]………………………………..Date ……………………………………………

    3. THE URGENCY.

    Jesus saves … today! Tomorrow may be too late: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” [Romans 6:23].

    4. THE BLESSING

    “Blessed is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, and has not stood in the way of sinners, and has not sat in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is only in the Law of Jehovah; and in His Law he meditates day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivulets of water that brings forth its fruit in its seasons, and its leaf shall not wither, and all which he does shall be blessed. The wicked are not so, but are like chaff which the wind drives away. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.” [Psalms 1:1-5].

    5. THE REMINDER.

    Jesus reminds us: “I am the door. If anyone enters in by Me, he shall be saved and shall go in and out and find pasture. The thief does not come except to steal and to kill and to destroy. I have come so that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.” [John 10:9-11]. “I have come as a Light into the world, so that whoever believes on Me should not remain in darkness. And if any one hears My Words and does not believe, I do not judge him, for I do not come to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects Me and does not receive My Words has one who judges him; the Word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” [John 12:46-48].

    6. THE PROMISE.

    ‘Behold, He comes with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, and those who pierced Him will see Him, and all the kindreds of the earth will wail because of Him. Even so, Amen.’ “I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending”, says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” [Revelations 1:7-8].

    7. THE GUARANTEE.

    “For it is written, ‘As I live’, says the Lord, ‘every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God.’ So then each one of us will give account concerning himself to God.” [Romans 14:11-12].

    Piet Stassen

    October 2, 2011 at 16:28

  27. The great insights of godiocy/religiocy/mystiocy laid bare. How spectacularly fuckin’ impressive they are!

    Con-Tester

    October 2, 2011 at 11:47

  28. 1. THE PROBLEM

    [Jude 1:4] For certain men crept in secretly, those having been of old previously written into this condemnation, ungodly ones perverting the grace of our God for unbridled lust, and denying the only Master, God, even our Lord Jesus Christ.

    2. THE SOLUTION: INVITATION TO REPENT AND ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST AS SAVIOUR AND LORD

    [2Mat 11:27-30] All things are delivered to Me by My Father. And no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son will reveal Him. Come to Me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke on you and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest to your souls. For My yoke is eaJud 1:4 For certain men crept in secretly, those having been of old previously written into this condemnation, ungodly ones perverting the grace of our God for unbridled lust, and denying the only Master, God, even our Lord Jesus Christ. sy, and My burden is light.

    [Isaiah 1:18] Come now, and let us reason together, says Jehovah; though your sins are as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be like wool.

    Invitation Accepted ………………………………………………………. Date …………………………………………………
    [Signature]

    3. THE URGENCY: JESUS SAVES … TODAY! TOMORROW MAY BE TOO LATE.

    [Romans 6:23] For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

    4. THE BLESSING

    Psalms 1:1-5 Blessed is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, and has not stood in the way of sinners, and has not sat in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is only in the Law of Jehovah; and in His Law he meditates day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivulets of water that brings forth its fruit in its seasons, and its leaf shall not wither, and all which he does shall be blessed. The wicked are not so, but are like chaff which the wind drives away. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

    Piet Stassen

    October 2, 2011 at 07:49

  29. Piet.

    Ek fokken worry oor jou.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    October 2, 2011 at 07:34

  30. Is it not insightful that the Piet Stassen’s of this world harp continuously on the issue of “eternal life”? Piet, a few questions on this:
    1) Have you ever thought that some of us are really not that hung up on the idea to live forever?
    2) Don’t you think that your fear for death is proof for the invention of a skydaddy that could fulfill your yearning to never die?
    3) Do you think that the fact that a large percentage of humankind has a need for some supernatural power, makes it the truth? – i.e. is this your honesty?

    Oh and Piet, try not to answer with some sermon out of your holy book. Please man, I gave up the cow (in fact ate a piece of one tonight)in my response above to you. So be honourable and extend be the same courtesy. Not that it really bothers me, just a waste of band-width really.

    Malherbe

    October 2, 2011 at 00:01

  31. 1. PROBLEM
    Godiots/religiots/mystiots.

    2. SOLUTION
    Reason.

    3. OUTCOME
    Significant reduction in fuck-ups.

    Con-Tester

    October 1, 2011 at 22:31

  32. 1. PROBLEM

    [Jude 1:4] For certain men crept in secretly, those having been of old previously written into this condemnation, ungodly ones perverting the grace of our God for unbridled lust, and denying the only Master, God, even our Lord Jesus Christ.

    2. INVITATION TO REPENT AND ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST AS SAVIOUR AND LORD

    [2Mat 11:27-30] All things are delivered to Me by My Father. And no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son will reveal Him. Come to Me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke on you and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest to your souls. For My yoke is eaJud 1:4 For certain men crept in secretly, those having been of old previously written into this condemnation, ungodly ones perverting the grace of our God for unbridled lust, and denying the only Master, God, even our Lord Jesus Christ. sy, and My burden is light.

    [Isaiah 1:18] Come now, and let us reason together, says Jehovah; though your sins are as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be like wool.

    Invitation Accepted ………………………………………………………. Date …………………………………………………
    [Signature]

    3. JESUS SAVES … TODAY! TOMORROW MAY BE TOO LATE.

    [Romans 6:23] For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

    Piet Stassen

    October 1, 2011 at 22:08

  33. Come now, and let us reason together…” So says the godiot.

    
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

    
    

    :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

    
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    October 1, 2011 at 21:13

  34. Oh, that’s nothing to WORRY about. You could easily let THREE QUARTERS of your brain ROT away and you’d still have more than ENOUGH left over to SHIT RINGS around any GODIOT.

    Con-Tester

    October 1, 2011 at 21:02

  35. 1. LESSON IN PROFANITY 1

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].PROFANITY

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].

    2. LESSON IN PROFANITY 2

    Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].

    3. LESSON IN PROFANITY 3

    [1Samuel 2:2-3] There is none holy as Jehovah, for there is none beside You. Neither is there any rock like our God. Talk no more so very proudly. Remove arrogance out of your mouth, for Jehovah is a God of knowledge, and by Him actions are weighed.

    4. LESSON IN PROFANITY 4

    [Psalms 12:6] The Words of Jehovah are pure Words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

    5. INVITATION TO REPENT AND ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST AS SAVIOUR AND LORD

    [2Mat 11:27-30] All things are delivered to Me by My Father. And no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son will reveal Him. Come to Me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke on you and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest to your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.

    [Isaiah 1:18] Come now, and let us reason together, says Jehovah; though your sins are as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be like wool.

    Invitation Accepted ………………………………………………………. Date …………………………………………………
    [Signature]

    JESUS SAVES … TODAY! TOMORROW MAY BE TOO LATE.

    Piet Stassen

    October 1, 2011 at 21:01

  36. Notice that since I have decided to adhere to religous dogma, I just love SHOUTING in CAPITAL LETTERS! Can’t help myself – its the Spirit of Cow working deep within my soul. Next my brain will probably start rotting away….

    Malherbe

    October 1, 2011 at 20:01

  37. THE COW SAVES….TODAY![TOMORROW MAY BE TOO LATE]. REPENT OOM PIET, REPENT.

    Malherbe

    October 1, 2011 at 18:55

  38. My goodness, just look at the thick pigshit these godiots/religiots/mystiots do peddle with their mind-numbing monotony! It’s amazing that these vacuous dopes manage at all to be quasi-functional biological entities.

    LESSON IN PROFANITY 5:
    Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something.” [Wikipedia] Yeah! It’s funny how the article says fuck-all about justification though — nearly as funny as the godiots’ incapacity to conceive of even the possibility of their beliefs’ abasing stupidity.

    JESUS SAVES, which makes him a better investor than Lehman Brothers.

    Con-Tester

    October 1, 2011 at 16:44

  39. JESUS SAVES … TODAY! [TOMORROW MAY BE TOO LATE].

    Piet Stassen

    October 1, 2011 at 16:15

  40. Oom Piet

    Ek dink werklik oom sit die pot vreeslik mis. Deur hierbo te kwoteer uit my Garuda Purana, het ek mos nou die bestaan van die Ware God bewys. Dit pla my vreeslik dat oom nog nie die ware got ontdek het nie. Asseblief oom, dis nog nie te laat nie. Bekeer jou asseblief vandag nog en omring jouself met koeie. Dit is die enigste weg en enigste waarheid, want my heilige handleiding sê dit pertinent. En oom, moenie vir my vertel ek is belaglik nie, want dit kom neer op “profanity” en dis nie mooi nie.

    Malherbe

    October 1, 2011 at 15:59

  41. Spesiaal aan Oom Piet Stassen

    Uit die Garuda Purana, beskou as deel vd Hindu “bybel”.

    p. 71

    “O Best of the Twice-born, the very form of Viṣṇu, God upon earth, uplift me. I have presented this gift to you. Salutations to Vaitaraṇī!

    “I have presented this to you, being desirous of crossing that river, which is a hundred yojanas in extent, and lies on the very dreadful way of Yama. Salutations to Vaitaraṇī.

    “O Cow, look upon me, for the sake of my passing through the gateway of Yama on the great path. Salutations to thee, Vaitaraṇī, Queen of the shining ones!

    “May cows be in front of me; may cows be behind me; may cows be in my heart 1; and may I dwell in the midst of cows.

    “May she who is the Goddess of Prosperity for all creatures, who is the mainstay of the shining ones, its the form of a cow remove my sins.”

    83-84. With hands together having invoiced, with these mantras, Yama in the form of a cow, and having walked round all these things, he should give them to the Brāhmiṇ.

    He who, with these rites, gives the Vaitaraṇī cow, goes by a righteous path into the assembly of the King of Justice.

    85-86. Whether the body is well or ill one should carry out the Vaitaraṇī observance. The wise man, desiring to cross that river, should make a gift of a cow.

    That river, O Bird, does not appear in the Great Way after the gift of a cow. 2 Therefore it is necessary to give a cow at all sacred times.

    87-88. At all the sacred bathing-places, like the Ganges, and in the dwelling-places of Brāhmiṇs; at the eclipses of the sun and moon, at the crossing over 1, on the day of the new moon.

    At the equinoctial and solstitial points, at Vyatīpāta, 2 on Yuga days 3 and at other sacred times,–the supreme gift of a cow should be made.

    Malherbe

    October 1, 2011 at 15:51

  42. 1. LESSON IN PROFANITY 1

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].PROFANITY

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].

    2. LESSON IN PROFANITY 2

    Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].

    3. LESSON IN PROFANITY 3

    [1Samuel 2:2-3] There is none holy as Jehovah, for there is none beside You. Neither is there any rock like our God. Talk no more so very proudly. Remove arrogance out of your mouth, for Jehovah is a God of knowledge, and by Him actions are weighed.

    4. LESSON IN PROFANITY

    [Psalms 12:6] The Words of Jehovah are pure Words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

    5. INVITATION TO REPENT AND ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST AS SAVIOUR AND LORD

    [2Mat 11:27-30] All things are delivered to Me by My Father. And no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son will reveal Him. Come to Me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke on you and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest to your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.

    [Isaiah 1:18] Come now, and let us reason together, says Jehovah; though your sins are as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be like wool.

    Invitation Accepted ………………………………………………………. Date …………………………………………………
    [Signature]

    JESUS SAVES … TODAY! TOMORROW MAY BE TOO LATE

    Piet Stassen

    October 1, 2011 at 14:07

  43. Talking about “[removing] arrogance out of your mouth,” have you listened to yourself and your fellow delusionals lately…?

    I also see that you’re intently avoiding revisiting those prior comments, as I recommended you do. This leaves you standing in the dark, making an empty, moronic echo that reverberates throughout this thread.

    Go on, be a daring godiot and try something new outside of your normal Jeeeeeebusssst! and Holey Babble horseshit because your lessons on profanity and invitations to self-lobotomisation are obviously not having the desired effect. One must wonder why — at least, anyone with more than two functioning brain cells to rub together must…

    Con-Tester

    October 1, 2011 at 12:41

  44. LESSON IN PROFANITY 3

    [1Samuel 2:2-3] There is none holy as Jehovah, for there is none beside You. Neither is there any rock like our God. Talk no more so very proudly. Remove arrogance out of your mouth, for Jehovah is a God of knowledge, and by Him actions are weighed.

    Piet Stassen

    October 1, 2011 at 12:11

  45. 😆😆😆 Yes, unwavering repetition. It shows the depth and extent of the godiots’ wit.😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    October 1, 2011 at 09:46

  46. LESSON IN PROFANITY 1

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].PROFANITY

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].

    LESSON IN PROFANITY 2

    Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].

    INVITATION TO REPENT AND ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST AS SAVIOUR AND LORD

    [2Mat 11:27-30] All things are delivered to Me by My Father. And no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son will reveal Him. Come to Me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke on you and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest to your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.

    Piet Stassen

    October 1, 2011 at 09:30

  47. Thanks again for all those wonderfully informative lessons. I refer you to my comment in this thread of September 24, 2011 at 15:01, and several subsequent ones.

    As for your invitation, I ungracefully decline. See my comment in this thread of September 23, 2011 at 21:39. It should have cleared things up for you but you’re too much of a godiot so you don’t get the message and think that constant repetition will make it all come true. Just like all the other godiots.

    And you still haven’t even attempted to answer my questions posed numerous times in this thread, which makes you a rude and hypocritical little godiot, preaching about nonsense and profanity. Where is this “wrath of God … revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men,” hmm? Did you lose it on your way over, maybe? You really should take better care of your things, you know.

    Now be a good little godiot and try to learn some new tricks, preferably some a little less stale than the childish baloney about redemption (from what, exactly!?) through that Jewish zombie son of a virgin-raping psychopath Jeeeeeeebussssst! later nailed to two planks for his pretensions to godhood, as described in your Holey Babble.

    Con-Tester

    October 1, 2011 at 08:40

  48. LESSON IN PROFANITY 1

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].PROFANITY

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].

    LESSON IN PROFANITY 2

    Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].

    INVITATION TO REPENT AND ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST AS SAVIOUR AND LORD

    [2Mat 11:27-30] All things are delivered to Me by My Father. And no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son will reveal Him. Come to Me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke on you and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest to your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.

    Piet Stassen

    October 1, 2011 at 07:07

  49. Eddie Snipes, sniping godiot writes:

    According to evolution, our galaxy is between 4.5 and 5 billion years old.

    Well, that’s as far as I managed to force myself. This short sentence is so riddled with errors that it irrecoverably sullies everything this cretinist/IDiot has to say. He’s a bad, sad joke with the usual blunt axe, wildly chopping at things he’s clueless about. Just like every other godiot.

    Con-Tester

    September 30, 2011 at 21:42

  50. Evolution meets perhaps the most important criterion for qualifying as a scientific theory: It is falsifiable. For example, you could show fossils of mammals among trilobites, or a living and reproducing organism’s genome entirely unrelated to any other, or bacteria that morph spontaneously into bats, or any of several other anomalies that would seriously challenge it.

    Con-Tester

    September 30, 2011 at 21:34

  51. “Dr.” John Pratt the apologist prattles:

    However, I’ll use the word theory to mean any explanation of observations.

    (Emphasis added.) See, that’s where Pratt fucks it up. Science applies a rather more stringent set of criteria before an “explanation of observations” gets to be labelled a “theory.” As an astronomer, he should be a bit more true to science and its rigours. Then again, lying for Jeeeeeebussssst! is what apologists make a career of.

    “Dr.” John Pratt the apologist prattles:

    If science can never prove a theory “true,” then truth really has no place at all in science. By “truth” I mean what is “really” going on.

    Blatant brain-dead non sequitur aside, what criteria does Pratt use to assess what’s “really” going on? Because apologists like Pratt always know the answer well before they do any actual investigations or objective evaluations of the facts against proposed explanations.

    “Dr.” John Pratt the apologist prattles:

    Truth has to do with ultimate causes, which are nearly always extremely elusive and beyond the realm of science.

    The idea that there are “ultimate causes” is in all likelihood a convenient fiction concocted by those who wish that it were indeed so. Physics recognises properly uncaused things, i.e. things that occur uncorrelated with anything else. How do we assign an “ultimate cause” to such things? Also, we have yet to determine an “ultimate cause” of anything at all. The best we can do is to trace back along prior causes until either we are honest and admit defeat, or we are dishonest and say “god.” (Note that I ignore here the fact that “cause” is not unambiguous and has a few different connotations, as per Aristotle.)

    “Dr.” John Pratt the apologist prattles:

    But science does not answer the question of just exactly what gravity is, or why things fall.

    Nonsense. For an astronomer, Pratt is remarkably naïve, even ignorant, about general relativity.

    “Dr.” John Pratt the apologist prattles:

    In general, science answers questions like “how,” “when,” “where”, but never “why” in the ultimate sense.

    That’s true. But like every other godiot/religiot/mysteriot, Pratt wants there to be teleological accounts of things. His mind is already shut to the possibility that there aren’t properly any such accounts outside of the ones we as humans subjectively confect. There are no compelling reasons to suppose that the universe is innately purposeful, and much evidence to support that it’s rather more a property of the human mind and consciousness to attempt imposing teleological rationales wherever opportune.

    Pratt’s attempted false analogy between investigating the nature of the universe and the proceedings in a criminal trial is deeply flawed and reveal his stupidity in conflating apples and non-apples: A person clearly is an agent with conscious drives and intentions, whereas the universe and nature have yet to be shown to be thus.

    And here’s a hint: Quantity isn’t a substitute for quality. Absent suitably convincing evidence, cretinist/IDiot twaddle is drivel, no matter how voluminously disgorged.

    Con-Tester

    September 30, 2011 at 21:21

  52. “Examples of selective facts
    Dating methods
    Most people do not realize it, but nearly 90% of dating results point to a young earth. However, evolution rejects the 90% and only acknowledges the 10%. In one year, 21,000 carbon14 specimens were submitted and 19,000 were rejected. Only 2,000 were considered accurate by evolutionist. Why?

    It is not just Carbon14 dating that has this problem, but all dating methods are screened through the evolutionary crosscheck. Dating is measured by circular logic. A fossil is dated by the geological layer in which it is found. The geological layer is dated by the fossils found within it. This produces a fail-proof system of crosschecking dates. The system is designed to hide inaccuracies. The geological layer is a theoretical layer modeled in the mid-1800s. Many fatal blows have been dealt to this process, but evolution has not let go of it. Polystrate trees pose a serious threat to this dating method. Polystrate trees are fossilized trees that are standing erect through many layers of the geological column. For a detailed look at the evidence for and against, visit the page ‘Polystrate Trees’

    It is impossible for these trees to have stood for the hundreds of thousand and often millions of years that these layers supposedly represent. Consider how a layer of strata is formed. Even evolutionary science agrees that layers of strata are formed by catastrophic events such as floods and volcanic eruptions. If each layer of strata represents an event, these dead trees would have survived through hundreds or thousands of events without falling, decaying or being destroyed. Somehow today it is rare to find a dead tree that has survived 5 years – and these trees are well down the road to decay. Believing that polystrate trees found all over the globe buried deep within the strata occurred by slow layering is quite a leap of faith.

    One rebuttal that is often used as ‘evidence’ for the creation of polystrate trees are tidal marshes. The forests bordering these marshlands are slowly being buried by sediment and it is therefore argued that these could one day become polystrate trees. There are two major flaws with this example. 1. These trees are still alive. When they die, they will decay and become part of the marshland soil. Evolutionists point to the living trees to show they are being slowly covered, but there are know dead trees that have any hope of being fossilized. They die and disappear just as all the trees before them have done. 2. Polystrate trees often have fossils in the layers surrounding them. In the marshlands, there are no fossils. When a creature dies, it decays and is lost forever. How will slowly covering a living tree create a fossilized tree and how will it create fossilized fish, birds and other animals? It can’t. However, with a crafty argument and a lot of imagination people can be convinced that this is evidence. Unfortunately for evolution, fictionary scenarios – not science – is the only evidence available.

    Another fatal blow was dealt in 1979 when the ‘extinct’ Coelacanth was found alive and well living off the coast of Madagascar. This fish was once an index fossil. Index fossils are extinct animals that are ‘known’ to have only lived during certain periods of time. Therefore, since the dates of their existence are supposedly known, they are then used to determine the age of the other fossils found within their same layer. The Coelacanth supposedly died out hundreds of millions of years ago. When its fossils are found in a layer of strata, the date of extinction is used to determine the minimum age of the other fossils within the same layer. If this creature that was once used as evidence for evolution is still alive, what does this tell us about the accuracy of dating layers by index fossils?

    Dating methods for a specimen is only accepted if it falls within the date range determined by the layer or index fossils within the layer. Scientists confirm this dating crosscheck in the Journal of Geological Society of Australia:

    Williams, I. S., W. Compston, B. W. Chapell, and T. Shirahase, Journal of the Geological Society of Australia, vol. 22, no. 4 (1975). p 502
    “The internal consistency demonstrated above is not a sufficient test of the accuracy of the age determinations; they must also be consistent within any age constraints placed on intrusion by fossils in the country rocks.”

    In a nutshell, they are admitting that the specimen itself is not accurately dated, so evolution puts constraints that place it within the age of fossils and rocks that have already been dated. What happens when dates don’t match up? Evolutionist L. R. Stieff explains how they get dates to agree:

    L. R. Stieff, “Algebraic and Graphic Methods for Evaluating Discordant Lead-Isotope Ages,” United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 414-E (1963), p. E1.

    “The most reasonable age can be selected only after careful consideration of independent geochronologic data as well as field, stratigraphic and paleontologic evidence, and the petrographic and paragenetic relations.

    “In an effort to evaluate a discordant age sequence, therefore, the data are adjusted in one of several ways until the lead-uranium and lead-lead ages are in agreement.”

    Here Stieff has acknowledged that the data is manipulated until the results are in agreement. Is this intellectual honesty? Why is all the evidence filtered through the evolutionary crosschecks? Is the system to date fossils designed to prevent failure and only support the evolution model? We have all heard evolution supporters herald the accuracy of various dating methods, but in reality there is no such thing as accuracy. Multiple dating methods are used and manipulated until the predetermined conclusion is matched. The dating that agrees with the presupposed age becomes the method that is used.

    What happens if none of the dates yield results that support evolution? 90% of dating does not support the evolution model. So what do evolutionists do with the rest of the evidence? R. L. Mauger of the University of Wyoming explains:

    (University of Wyoming) Contributions to Geology, vol.. 15, no. 1 (Winter 1977), pp. 17-41. p 37
    “In general, dates in the ‘correct ball park’ are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained.”

    We should ask ourselves, why is this evidence excluded without an explanation?

    Why are 10% of the results considered more credible than the other 90%?

    What happens when there is no way to reconcile observable science with evolution? We see many examples where inexplicable gaps are filled in with assumptions. When this happens, the assumptions are treated as fact without verifiable evidence. An example of this is ‘dark matter’.

    Dark Matter
    According to evolution, our galaxy is between 4.5 and 5 billion years old. However, an interesting problem has been added to the equation since the discovery of dwarf galaxies. It is amusing that the farther technology advances, the more assumptions must be added to support evolution. Dwarf galaxies are smaller galaxies with a faster rotation. The problem with dwarf galaxies is that the faster rotation does not fit the old universe model of the Big Bang theory. The dwarf galaxy’s rotation would have caused them to disperse in 1/150th of the supposed age of the universe. To solve the problem, evolution sought for an out. Remember, the evolution model is based on the presupposition that the beginning is a fact. Anything that contradicts the starting point collapses the whole model. Updating the model is never an option. Therefore Dark Matter was invented.

    Dark matter is a theoretical force that has a gravitational effect on galaxies and prevents them from dispersing. However, the invention of dark matter created a new problem. If it prevented dwarf galaxies from dispersing, it would have the same effect on larger galaxies. This would also contradict the evolution model. To solve this problem, the theory was updated to include cold dark matter and hot dark matter. Cold dark matter slows down the dispersion of stars in dwarf galaxies without slowing down their rotation. Hot dark matter travels at or near the speed of light, thus allowing larger galaxies to stay within the evolution model. Keep in mind that there is no evidence for dark matter and its only purpose is to constrain the observable science so that it fits evolution. It cannot be tested, proved or disproven. The reason scientists believe dark matter exists is that it must exist in order for the Big Bang to be true.

    University of Hertfordshire Astronomy defines dark matter this way:

    Dark matter. Hypothetical matter which is postulated to exist in the universe in vast quantities. It is difficult to detect because it is either non luminous or possessed of a very low luminosity . Dark matter is thought to exist because of its gravitational effects in the universe; specifically within galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Within a spiral galaxy, the stars move as if large quantities of matter, which cannot be seen, exist around the disc of the galaxy. Within clusters of galaxies, the individual galaxies move as if ten times as much matter exists than can be seen in the stars and the emission nebulae. Dark matter may come in two principle types: the first is baryonic matter. This is matter such as makes up the luminous portions of the universe. The atoms of the familiar chemical elements are simply bound into intrinsically low luminosity objects such as planets , brown dwarfs and black holes . If the matter is not in this form, then the second type is dark matter which is thought to exist in the form of the exotic particles. These are predicted by certain Grand Unified Theories . Two sub-classifications of exotic dark matter exist; cold dark matter and hot dark matter. Hot dark matter is composed of particles such as neutrinos . They are called hot because they travel at (or very close to) the speed of light. Neutrinos are a prime candidate, although there is still uncertainty over whether they have any mass. If neutrinos do not have mass, they cannot provide the gravity necessary to act as the dark matter. Cold dark matter is composed of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs). These particles are possessed of relatively large masses, travel relatively slowly and interact only weakly with ‘normal’ baryonic material. Hence, they are difficult to detect. Although many experiments have been undertaken to detect neutrino masses and WIMPs, no conclusive evidence has yet been found and the search for what the constituents are in dark matter goes on.

    It is interesting how this explanation implies that it is a fact while admitting that it has never been observed. They first say it is difficult to detect and then say there is no evidence ‘yet’. When evolution’s back is against the wall, scientists push the facts as far out of reach as possible. Some even claim that aliens introduced bacteria via a rocket. This doesn’t answer the origin of life, it only attempts to entrap creationists by trying to make them prove there isn’t life out in space. Notice the theory of dark matter is not based on observable science and there is no evidence to support it. Even so, you find more and more evolutionists claiming that it is a verifiable fact. Scientific America posted an article claiming that 90% of the universe was composed of dark matter. Here is an excerpt from this article:

    Based on 50 years of accumulated observations of the motions of galaxies and the expansion of the universe, most astronomers believe that as much as 90 percent of the stuff constituting the universe may be objects or particles that cannot be seen. In other words, most of the universe’s matter does not radiate–it provides no glow that we can detect in the electromagnetic spectrum. First posited some 60 years ago by astronomer Fritz Zwicky, this so-called missing matter was believed to reside within clusters of galaxies. Nowadays we prefer to call the missing mass “dark matter,” for it is the light, not the matter, that is missing.

    Let’s take a critical look at this claim. It completely depends on the power of persuasion to establish the evolutionary position. On the surface, they appear to be presenting evidence, but a closer look reveals that they are basing the ‘fact of dark matter’ on pure conjecture. This paragraph establishes authority based on ‘50 years of accumulated observations’. No facts are presented. What was observed? The universe expanding. That is clear. It is how the universe is expanding that created the problem for evolution.

    Also notice that the implication that science has observed that 90% of the universe is dark matter is based solely on the statement, ‘most scientists believe’. Belief means nothing if there is no supporting evidence. It is the faith of evolutionists that is presented as evidence for evolution. They ‘believe’ it exists, though it has never been seen, measured or detected. If matter can’t be seen, measured or detected, what rational basis can they base their assumptions on? Where did the concept of dark matter come from? It was imagined and invented for the sole purpose of keeping galaxies within the box of evolution. It is now being heralded as a known fact based solely on the claims that ‘most scientists believe it’.

    Observable science points away from dark matter, not toward it. In 1972, NASA launched the exploratory space probe Pioneer 10. Its primary mission was to reach Jupiter to photograph the planet, surrounding moons and gather data to send back to earth. It was considered a risky adventure to even reach Jupiter. When it reached Jupiter in 1973, the effect of the planet had an unforeseen effect on Pioneer 10. The large planet’s gravity caused Pioneer 10 to gain a greater amount of speed, which propelled it farther out into space. Jupiter is approximately 360,000,000 miles from earth and Pioneer 10 was only designed to make this journey. However, with the increased speed, Pioneer has now gone over 6 billion miles past the Sun. What is even more remarkable is that Pioneer 10 only has an 8-watt radio transmitter. From 6 billion miles away, this tiny transmitter still reaches the earth in a little over 9 hours.

    What does this have to do with dark matter? It adds another piece to the puzzle. If dark matter makes up 90% of the galaxy, shouldn’t this probe have encountered it in its 6 Billion mile journey? After all, one of the functions of Pioneer 10 was to measure the magnetic fields, radiation belts, atmosphere and other data from the planet Jupiter. Pioneer 10 has not encountered dark matter. Dark matter also has not slowed down the flight of this probe. It also has not hindered the transmission back to earth. An 8-watt transmitter is compared to the power of a nightlight. It does not give off much energy. Unlike a star, it does not take much interference to block the signal of an 8-watt radio. Yet dark matter supposedly has enough substance to affect entire galaxies.

    Is it possible that dark matter may not exist?

    Why does dark matter exist only where it fits evolution’s interest but does not interfere in any other way?

    Could blind faith actually be masquerading as invisible matter?

    Evolution is a faith based belief system. The more science discovers, the more faith is required to hold to the evolution god. He does not exist and has no attributes that give him power, yet he is worshipped by the majority of the world. This statement will enrage most evolutionists I realize, but I can support this claim by the testimonies of evolution scientists, researchers and educators. Evolution is not called a god. Instead, science is reshaped and redefined to mean ‘god’. In the next section, I will examine these testimonies with the hope to remove the veil so that people can choose which god they will serve. If someone wants evolution, they have that choice. My goal is to make it an educated choice.”

    Eddie Snipes

    soois

    September 30, 2011 at 20:40

  53. “In this sense, evolution does not qualify as a theory. A theory allows you to go back and make modifications when an error is discovered. This is not possible with evolution. The premise can’t change or it ceases to be evolution. Evolutionary study can NEVER draw any other conclusion other than evolving life and remaining within the box. That is why evolutionists must call it a fact. If it is not a fact, they have no foundation. They can’t admit defeat without abandoning ship. Therefore, even if the facts don’t support it, they tenaciously defend their position. Evolution can’t even be accurately called a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess that is followed by experimentation to prove or disprove the assumption. Evolutionists do make many educated guesses, but the experimentation can’t be honestly evaluated. It either gives the results they want, or it is tossed out. The results can’t be allowed to contradict the ‘fact’ of evolution because they can’t go back and make the necessary corrections. The end result has already been determined and anything that does not support its foundation or point to the evolutionary destination cannot be accepted.”

    http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/think/factortheory.shtml

    soois

    September 30, 2011 at 20:38

  54. “Facts
    The word fact can be used several ways, but in general in science, “facts” refer to the observations. They are best when they are repeatable observations under controlled conditions, such as “It is a fact that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum.” This is the part of science which will be the same a century from now, unless more precise measurements show otherwise.

    Theories
    The theories are the explanations proposed in step two of the scientific method. Usually the word “theory” is reserved for more than a first attempt, which might be called a “hypothesis.” A theory usually has already survived several falsification attempts, and is pretty well accepted. However, I’ll use the word theory to mean any explanation of observations.

    Thus, by separating facts from theories, I mean distinguishing between observations and explanations. When you hear the news, “The Dow Jones took a plunge today because of fears about the Asian crisis,” is that fact or theory? It was half and half. The fact is that the market went down: that is an observation which was measured. But who knows what drives the market? The matter-of-fact statement that it was caused by such fears could be anything from one reporter’s speculation to a general consensus of market analysts. In any case, it remains only a theory. No one will separate the facts from theories for you; the trend is to present everything as truth.

    Truth
    Let’s take just a moment to talk about truth. If science can never prove a theory “true,” then truth really has no place at all in science. By “truth” I mean what is “really” going on. Truth has to do with ultimate causes, which are nearly always extremely elusive and beyond the realm of science. Science deals with theories, usually mathematical, which predict outcomes of experiments. For example, if we drop a rock off a cliff, the law of gravity combined with theories of air resistance and other forces can be used to calculate just how long it will take to hit the ground, and how fast it will go, etc. But science does not answer the question of just exactly what gravity is, or why things fall. It just states that given certain conditions, they will fall. In general, science answers questions like “how,” “when,” “where”, but never “why” in the ultimate sense.

    As an example of the interplay of the three concepts of observations, theories and truth, consider the courtroom. The observations may be that a man was seen shooting a gun and that the person hit by the bullet died. The theory may be that it was cold-blooded murder, but the truth may be that it was self-defense. Truth tends to be invisible and hidden, such as someone’s motives, whereas observations are usually visible. Courts are very interested in truth, where the motive (the ultimate cause) for actions is given considerable weight. The distinction between first-degree and second degree murder is based on intent. Motives are not as yet observable in science, and hence are beyond science.”

    http://www.johnpratt.com/items/astronomy/science.html

    soois

    September 30, 2011 at 20:33

  55. What a crock of ignorant, self-serving manure.

    Scientific theories succeed because of consistent failure to find evidence that falsifies them, and scientists spend most of their time looking for new and different ways of finding scientific theories’ weak spots. Evidence that disconfirms is much hotter property than evidence that confirms, and science always thrives on discordant evidence because it teaches us something new.

    Religion is just the same paternalistic, authoritarian, evidence-free unreason repeated over and over as though there can be no doubt about its veracity.

    Science is like religion in the same way that ignorance is a real blessing.

    Con-Tester

    September 29, 2011 at 10:48

  56. Balanced Truths,

    dankie vir jou interessante en insiggewende pos. My doel was eintlik net om te wys hoe ‘n wetenskaplike “teorie” nie noodwendig “feit” is nie, ‘n onderwerp waaroor ek en ander al male sonder tal gestry het. Die wetenskap het ‘n skuiwergat in die taalgebruik gekry wat selfs in die “Wikipedia” vir die wetenskap ‘n ander betekenis vir die woord “teorie” gee as vir ander individue. Enige iemand met ‘n bietjie verstand kan tog vir homself indink dat die woord “teorie” ‘n slim skuiwergat is, net indie enige “teorie” dalk later verkeerd bewys word, anders sou hulle van wetenskaplike “feite” of so-iets gepraat het. Soos jy self tereg gese het, word daar na ‘n wetenskaplike ontdekking, baie toetse gedoen om so ‘n teorie te bevestig. Sommige teoriee word al baie jare getoets, maar daar sal van teoriee gepraat word totdat hulle sonder enige twyfel as feite bewys is. Ons praat vanaf die begin van die 20ste eeu nie meer van van die teorie van die lugvaart op ‘n vlerk nie, om een voorbeeld te noem, want in 1903 het die eerste vliegtuig gevlieg en is die “teorie” dat ‘n draagvlak (aerofoil) ‘n vaartuig in die lug op behoort te trek, bewys.

    Ek sien daar is baie gese oor die moontlikheid dat Einstein se teorie verkeerd kan wees, en dit sal nog lank aanhou, want die wetenskaplike teoriee is soos ‘n godsdiens vir baie ouens, veral sekere ouens. Ons Christene moet “oopkop” wees en die moontlikheid dat ons verkeerd mag wees oorweeg, maar wee die ou wat ‘n moontlike krakie in die wetenskaplik teoriee oopvlek.

    Groete daar.

    soois

    September 29, 2011 at 09:53

  57. Regarding my post of September 24, 2011 at 17:10 it seems that the 6.9ns OPERA offered would be right on the money. I surmise we will have to start looking at other possible explanations as what I wrote is not actual or informed truth but bad statistics. Well at least I am not a statistician so I don’t have to feel too bad for missing the obvious. it seems the edges of the distribution graphs are close enough to Normal in shape for a simple estimate of their uncertainty and it falls right in the ballpark quoted by OPERA.

    Balanced Truths

    September 27, 2011 at 21:20

  58. The Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa is still unable to affirm the Belhar Confession and is therefore a “suspended member” of the WCRC pending acceptance of the document.

    (Source.)

    Crushtianity is moral, eh? Religion is good, eh? Faith has people treat one another decently, eh?

    “Oh, but it’s not my religion!”

    Yeah, right.

    Con-Tester

    September 27, 2011 at 10:10

  59. Piet!!!! Dagsê.

    Jou poste “Jesus is Lord” verwys.

    Die man Jesus van Nasaret, van wie ons in die Bybel lees, is beslis nie die “Here” nie.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    September 27, 2011 at 06:00

  60. But is it really the “FINAL REMINDER” to lobotomise yourself voluntarily? Will you make a promise that it really is the “FINAL REMINDER,” Piet Stassen? Go on, be a brave and conscientious lambchop, and commit beyond your Holey Babble.

    Because a change of scenery from the repetitious bullshit-bedecked stupidity to something a little more inspired would be nice. I mean, given their prior voluntary auto-lobotomisations, the godiot and the puffed-up cretin with delusions of rule-making-credibility-cum-impartial-umpirehood-cum-trustworthy-arbitration will not be much concerned with the mind-numbing reiteration of these goofy fairytales. However, it really is a tad inconsiderate towards the casual reader, as even a flimsy windbag should be capable of appreciating.

    Con-Tester

    September 26, 2011 at 12:34

  61. FINAL REMINDER TO MAKE PEACE WITH GOD AND ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST AS SAVIOUR AND LORD

    2Peter 2:1-12 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who secretly will bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their pernicious ways, and because of them the way of truth will be evil spoken of. And through covetousness they will use you for gain with well-turned words; for whom judgment from of old does not linger, and their destruction does not sleep.
    For if God did not spare sinning angels, but thrust them down into Tartarus, and delivered them into chains of darkness, being reserved to judgment. And He did not spare the old world, but saved Noah the eighth one, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly. And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, He condemned them with an overthrow, setting an example to men intending to live ungodly. And He delivered righteous Lot, oppressed with the lustful behavior of the lawless. For that righteous one living among them, in seeing and hearing, his righteous soul was tormented from day to day with their unlawful deeds.
    The Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to reserve the unjust for a day of judgment, to be punished, and especially those who walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise dominion. They are darers, self-pleasing; not trembling at glories, speaking evil. Where angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reproaching accusation against them before the Lord. But these, as unreasoning natural brute animals having been born for capture and corruption, speak evil of the things that they do not understand. And they will utterly perish in their own corruption.

    Rev 22:16-17 I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify these things to you over the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the bright and Morning Star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come! And let the one hearing say, Come! And let the one who is thirsty come. And he willing, let him take of the Water of Life freely.

    JESUS STILL SAVES … TODAY! TOMORROW MAY BE TOO LATE.

    Piet Stassen

    September 26, 2011 at 12:10

  62. PROFANITY

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].

    Piet Stassen

    September 26, 2011 at 12:00

  63. [André Carl van der Merwe’s novel Moffie] unfolds by juxtaposing Nicholas van der Swart’s humiliating experiences in the South African army with scenes of his much earlier life, looping back to his first memories as a child. Virtually all of the childhood reminiscences are ugly encounters with his father. Even at age two, Nicholas was repeatedly warned by his father not to be a sissy. His Afrikaner father upholds the rigidity of the Dutch Reformed Church, his Catholic mother is only marginally less narrow-minded. Nicholas has to watch his father sadistically kill wild animals. When the boy’s own brother dies, Nicholas is expected to meet the tragedy stoically. The repeated litany from his father is “If I find out you are a moffie, that is the end.” In short, be a man, excel at sports, love God and “Do not shame” your parents by being gentle, soft, emotional.

    (Source).

    The book contains lots of historical facts and takes many of its cues from others’ testimonies. Therefore, it’s irrefutably another piece of Eternal and Immutable Truth™

    Con-Tester

    September 26, 2011 at 10:13

  64. JEEEEEEBUSSSSSST! IS LARD!

    (That’s not a spelling error, it’s pig fat. Save you the trouble of looking it up.)

    I had a Jewish friend once who opened a dairy shop in Israel. He called it “Cheeses of Nazareth.” He had many faithful customers.

    Con-Tester

    September 26, 2011 at 08:31

  65. JESUS IS LORD 3

    Hebrews 1:1-3 God, who at many times and in many ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds, who being the shining splendor of His glory, and the express image of His essence, and upholding all things by the word of His power, through Himself cleansing of our sins, He sat down on the right of the Majesty on high.

    Piet Stassen

    September 26, 2011 at 08:30

  66. JESUS IS LORD 2

    Romans 11:33-36 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? Or who first gave to Him, and it will be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things; to Him be glory forever! Amen.

    Piet Stassen

    September 26, 2011 at 08:27

  67. JESUS IS LORD

    Psalms 8:3-9 When I look at Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars which You have established; what is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man, that You visit him? For You have made him lack a little from God, and have crowned him with glory and honor. You made him rule over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet: all sheep and oxen, yes, and the beasts of the field; the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, and all that pass through the paths of the seas. O Jehovah, our Lord, how excellent is Your name in all the earth!

    Piet Stassen

    September 25, 2011 at 23:18

  68. Yes, ’cos repetition is the soul of wit if you’re a godiot and/or a puffed-up cretin with delusions of significance that have you believing you get to call the shots.

    Ooops. See what you make me do!? Tut-tut, you make me repeat myself. Then again, repetition is the soul of wit if you’re a godiot and/or a puffed-up cretin with delusions of significance that have you believing you get to call the shots.

    Con-Tester

    September 25, 2011 at 22:30

  69. NEWSBREAK: ICONS OF EVOLUTION BITE THE DUST

    1. Archaeopteryx : The so-called ‘cross-over between reptiles and birds’, proven to be a hoax [fraud].

    2. Neanderthal Man: Misrepresentation. Neanderthal Man probably was an ordinary human being of immense age that had suffered, amongst others, from chronic Vitamin D deficiency and other ailments, e.g. diabetes, arthritis and rickets.

    3. Java Man: Misrepresentation [Fossil-remains of a Gibbon Ape]

    4. Nebraska Man: Misrepresentation [Tooth of a pig]

    5. Orce Man: Misrepresentation [Skull of a 4-month old donkey]

    6. Peking Man: Misrepresentation [Ordinary human being]

    7. Piltdown Man: Hoax [Fraud] by Charles Dawson and Sir Arthur Keith, exposed by South African-born Prof. J.S. Weiner of Oxford and team of experts, in collaboration with Scotland Yard detectives.

    8. Rhodesia Man: Remains of an ordinary human being.

    9. Mrs. Ples & Taung Man: Misrepresentation [All apes]. The skull-capacities of the so-called Australopithecus group of fossil-remains are too small [750 cc.].

    10. Lucy: Misrepresentation [Fossil-remains of a pygmee-chimpanzee]

    11. Coelacanth: Misrepresentation [Supposed to be extinct for ‘60 million years’, this ’60 million year old’ ‘index-fossil’, was caught [live] swimming off the coast of South Africa on 22 December 1938.

    Romans 1:18-22: For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them. For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse. Because, knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.
    – Paul the Apostle.

    Piet Stassen

    September 25, 2011 at 22:21

  70. And presumably those guilty of “unenjoyable wickedness”, “evil”, “foolish”, the “doers of iniquity”, “liars” and the “bloody and deceitful” will be at the sharp end of this “wrath of God … revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.”

    Besides there being much to reflect on for the committed godiot and/or puffed-up cretin with delusions of significance, what’s the timeframe on this divine construction project? Is it on schedule? Or are those two billion-odd subcontractors busy fucking it all up?

    Can you answer these simple questions, Piet Stassen? If yes, when will deign to do so? If no, why should anyone believe anything you say?

    Con-Tester

    September 25, 2011 at 20:24

  71. Psalms 5:1-6 To the Chief Musician, for flutes. A Psalm of David. Give ear to my words, O Jehovah; consider my meditation. Listen to the voice of my cry, my King and my God; for to You I will pray. My voice You shall hear in the morning, O Jehovah; in the morning I will direct my prayer to You, and I will look up. For You are not a God that enjoys wickedness; nor shall evil dwell with You. The foolish shall not stand in Your sight. You hate all doers of iniquity. You shall destroy those who speak lies; Jehovah will despise the bloody and deceitful man.

    Piet Stassen

    September 25, 2011 at 20:09

  72. That’s a bit more succinct, yes. See esp. defs. 1., 2. & 4. in the first part (3. doesn’t apply), and 1. in the second. Then consider 2. in the second part and have a very good look in a mirror if you’re a godiot or a puffed-up cretin with delusions of significance.

    Con-Tester

    September 25, 2011 at 18:59

  73. PROFANITY

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].

    Piet Stassen

    September 25, 2011 at 18:41

  74. And presumably these “ungodly”, these “sinners”, these “scornful” and these “wicked” ones will receive the “wrath of God … revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.”

    What’s the timeframe on this divine construction project? Is it on schedule? Or are those two billion-odd subcontractors fucking it up?

    Con-Tester

    September 25, 2011 at 09:58

  75. Psalms 1:1-5 Blessed is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, and has not stood in the way of sinners, and has not sat in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is only in the Law of Jehovah; and in His Law he meditates day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivulets of water that brings forth its fruit in its seasons, and its leaf shall not wither, and all which he does shall be blessed. The wicked are not so, but are like chaff which the wind drives away. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

    Piet Stassen

    September 25, 2011 at 07:28

  76. Thanks again for the timely reminder, Piet Stassen, though it’s a bit redundant. Repetition is the soul of wit if you’re a godiot. My reply (September 24, 2011 at 15:01) addresses all of your idiotic concerns if only you’d expend the tiniest fraction of thought on it.

    ————————————

    Dear Bawwanced Twoofs,

    Still “ignoring me for the most part,” I see.

    If you feel you’ve wasted your time on September 3, 2011 at 14:36, that’s tough shit. You have my answer. Twice. Get over your self-importance already. Besides, it’s you who keeps introducing new issues, not me. Nor am I addressing them, just pointing out your full-of-shitness.

    As for “seeing my mistake,” you know the answer to that too…

    Con-Tester

    September 24, 2011 at 22:20

  77. Dear CT
    Science & Religion September 3, 2011 at 14:36 will have to be addressed with a modicum of honesty before any new issues can be addressed.

    I am wondering if you ever see your mistake, would you admit it?

    Balanced Truths

    September 24, 2011 at 21:42

  78. What Is PROFANITY?

    Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].

    Piet Stassen

    September 24, 2011 at 21:40

  79. Of course, it really does help if you check your figures before hitting that “Post Comment” button…

    Con-Tester

    September 24, 2011 at 18:49

  80. Hey look, it’s some actual truth for a change! And informed truth at that, too. The balance is a bit fucked, though. You failed to point out that, while these results cannot lightly be dismissed given the eminence of the team and the facility that produced them, it’s even more presumptuous and arrogant simply to sweep aside all the extant evidence that militates against those findings and to declare special relativity dead. Besides, general relativity permits local FTL travel and 730 km is very local on a cosmic scale.

    Con-Tester

    September 24, 2011 at 17:49

  81. Soois, wanneer ‘n eksperiment buitengewone resultate gee, is dit normale praktyk om verder ondersoek in te stel en dit is presies wat nou gebeur.

    Die implikasies van hierdie vindinge is te ernstig om enige afleidings te maak of om enige verduidelikings te probeer kwyt raak. Dit is ‘n baie akkurate studie wat deur ‘n ongelooflike goed gekwalifiseerde span uitgevoer word en om sommer te sê hulle is verkeerd is voorbarig en arrogant.

    Maar, die afstand van die neutrino bundel is gemeet oor ‘n afstand van 730 kilometer met’ n onsekerheid van 20 cm. Hulle meet die verspreiding van die protone by die bron, in CERN. Die protone slaan ‘n teiken met maksimum digtheid om neutrino’s te skep. Hulle meet dan die tyd verspreiding van neutrino’s wat by Gran Sasso aankom. Hulle vergelyk dan die verspreidings grafieke, wanneer hulle ooreenstem, en hulle bereken dan die tyd van die vlug, en dus die spoed ook, en van die Opera-resultaat is die standaard afwyking van die gemiddelde ± 24 nano sekondes, terwyl die Opera-groep ‘n statistiese onsekerheid kry wat drie keer kleiner is as wat dit behoort te wees.

    Hulle proef grootte is 11 keer te klein, in plaas van ± 16 000 waarnemings benodig hulle ± 200 000 om die statistiese sekerheid wat hulle voorgee te kan bereken.

    In vergelyking met baie meer geloofwaardig resultate wat ons op neutrino spoed uit ander bronne waargeneem het is dit waarskynlik dat die Opera-span ‘n fout gemaak het. Tog is dit eerder die media wat verleë behoort te wees vir die onwetenskaplike stellings wat hulle kwyt geraak het.

    Balanced Truths

    September 24, 2011 at 17:10

  82. Yes, thanks for the reminder, but I’m well aware of all that — yet I do it anyway. Hmm, a deep mystery. What gives? Of course, if you’re a godiot, you’ll just write it off as gratuitous boorishness or something equally facile. That’s because godiots are incapable of seeing further than their own out-of-joint noses, not even to the plain-as-day, right-there-in-your-face description of what this forum is all about. Equally, no godiot is able to comprehend that s/he glibly profanes all that is naturally good, decent and reasoning in people with these juvenile scaremonger’s tales. They further profane logic, truth and the need for evidence by pumping their fanciful baloney all over the show as if it was more than a fairytale for the brain-dead. Finally, they profane morality by denying their own stultifying profanity.

    The difference is that my profanity is a fuckin’ sight more open and honest than any godiot’s ever was.

    BTW, there’s still no sign of this “wrath of God … revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.” Come, come! Where is it? Enquiring minds want to know!

    *All you hear is the soft thud of godiot brain cells dropping like flies inside essentially vacant crania.*

    Con-Tester

    September 24, 2011 at 15:01

  83. What Is PROFANITY?

    Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].

    Piet Stassen

    September 24, 2011 at 14:41

  84. Uhm, that’s just so odd: Still no sign of this “wrath of God … revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.”

    C’mon, where did you put it, Piet Stassen? Don’t be greedy and keep it all for yourself now. Didn’t your mother ever teach you to share your things?

    Con-Tester

    September 24, 2011 at 09:48

  85. 1. Rev 22:16-17 I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify these things to you over the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the bright and Morning Star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come! And let the one hearing say, Come! And let the one who is thirsty come. And he willing, let him take of the Water of Life freely.
    2. Invitation to accept Jesus Christ as Saviour & Lord [R.S.V.P. Please]:

    I herewith today accept Jesus Christ as my personal Saviour and Lord. Dear Lord Jesus, with my signature below I pledge allegiance to Thee. Please forgive me my sins, wash me in the holy blood of the lamb shed for me at Calvary and write my name in the Lamb’s Book Of Life. May the Holy Spirit lead me in the Truth. I pray this not on the grounds of any personal merit or goodness but purely on the righteousness of Jesus Christ, Lord and Master of the Universe.

    [Signed] [Date]

    Piet Stassen

    September 24, 2011 at 07:15

  86. NEWSBREAK: GODIOTS REMAIN WILFULLY IGNORANT

    1. Actually, that’s hardly news [They just keep on lying for Jeeeeeebussssst!].

    So where’s this wrath “against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men,” hmm? Not here, that much is obvious.

    Con-Tester

    September 23, 2011 at 23:38

  87. NEWSBREAK: ICONS OF EVOLUTION BITE THE DUST

    1. Archaeopteryx : The so-called ‘cross-over between reptiles and birds’, proven to be a hoax [fraud].

    2. Neanderthal Man: Misrepresentation. Neanderthal Man probably was an ordinary human being of immense age that had suffered, amongst others, from chronic Vitamin D deficiency and other ailments, e.g. diabetes, arthritis and rickets.

    3. Java Man: Misrepresentation [Fossil-remains of a Gibbon Ape]

    4. Nebraska Man: Misrepresentation [Tooth of a pig]

    5. Orce Man: Misrepresentation [Skull of a 4-month old donkey]

    6. Peking Man: Misrepresentation [Ordinary human being]

    7. Piltdown Man: Hoax [Fraud] by Charles Dawson and Sir Arthur Keith, exposed by South African-born Prof. J.S. Weiner of Oxford and team of experts, in collaboration with Scotland Yard detectives.

    8. Rhodesia Man: Remains of an ordinary human being.

    9. Mrs. Ples & Taung Man: Misrepresentation [All apes]. The skull-capacities of the so-called Australopithecus group of fossil-remains are too small [750 cc.].

    10. Lucy: Misrepresentation [Fossil-remains of a pygmee-chimpanzee]

    11. Coelacanth: Misrepresentation [Supposed to be extinct for ‘60 million years’, this ’60 million year old’ ‘index-fossil’, was caught [live] swimming off the coast of South Africa on 22 December 1938.

    Romans 1:18-22: For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them. For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse. Because, knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.
    – Paul the Apostle.

    Piet Stassen

    September 23, 2011 at 23:08

  88. And here I still am, hale as ever. Not that you godiots will draw the most obvious conclusion from this little demonstration of contrariness. No, it’s a given that you morons are just brimming with asininely contrived excusery that is satisfactory only to you and your intellectual peers.

    Con-Tester

    September 23, 2011 at 22:02

  89. Ay, those Holey Babble verses are just sooo convincing — of the godiots’ terminal denseness.

    Luke 12:10 (KJV): And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

    Fok die heilige poep in sy hol met die piele en vingers van sy onnosel volgelinge.

    Perhaps not clear enough for you?

    Con-Tester

    September 23, 2011 at 21:39

  90. 1. Psalms 14:1 To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God! They acted corruptly; they have done abominable works, there is none who does good.
    2. Psalms 2:1-4 Why do the nations rage, and the peoples meditate on a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers plot together, against Jehovah and against His anointed, saying, Let us break their bands in two and cast away their cords from us. He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; Jehovah shall mock at them.
    3. Isaiah 1:18-20 Come now, and let us reason together, says Jehovah; though your sins are as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be like wool. If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured with the sword; for the mouth of Jehovah has spoken.
    4. Heb 2:1-3 Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and if every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by those who heard Him …
    John 8:24 Therefore I [Jesus] said to you that you shall die in your sins, for if you do not believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins.

    Piet Stassen

    September 23, 2011 at 21:19

  91. … and it takes an extremely special kind of thickness to imply seriously that the truth or falsity of biological evolution hinges on the truth or falsity of special relativity…🙄

    Con-Tester

    September 23, 2011 at 20:33

  92. Fuck me, you’re an ignorant idiot. Those CERN results still need independent corroboration because many things could have gone wrong. In fact, there’s hugely more prior evidence that they are indeed erroneous, so exactly nothing has been proven wrong about Einstein’s special relativity at this point in time.

    As always, you’re utterly clueless about science and therefore talking laughable kak.

    Con-Tester

    September 23, 2011 at 19:41

  93. Albert Einstein se “wetenskaplike teorie” dat niks vinniger as lig kan beweeg nie, sopas verkeerd bewys. So much for scintific theory being fact. One down, more to come…

    soois

    September 23, 2011 at 19:20

  94. Soois, ek het nie gevra vir bewyse dat jy van iemand soos Dawkins weet nie. Ek het dit bloot gestel dat jy duidelik nie ‘n snars van volusie verstaan nie en dus hul erke moet oplees. Soos te wagte is jy nie braaf genoeg nie en maak flou verskoninkies soos “dat dit niks vir jou siel” doen nie. So what? Lees dit dan net vir iets simpels soos die inwin van kennis. Gebruik jou bokwagter geskrewe handleiding vir jou “siel” – moenie van Dawkins verwag om daai joppie te doen nie. Hy het sover my kennis sterk nog nooit daarop aanspraak gemaak nie.

    Jou argumente teen evolusie word baie duidelik deur bv Dawkins se “Greatest Show on Earth” aangespreek. Maar jy weier en sal voortneuk om kop-innie-sand jou skydaddy te aanbid met jou heilige handleidinkie as enigste bron.

    Malherbe

    September 23, 2011 at 14:15

  95. En vir my siel?
    Wonderlik, opwindend, heerlik!!

    ErickV

    September 23, 2011 at 13:59

  96. Soois,

    Jy vra wat die “gesamentlike voorouer” was.
    Ek kan vir jou baie, baie eerlik se dat ek nie werklik omgee nie! So what?
    Ek het nie evolusie nodig om vir my te se dat daar nie ‘n ou omie op ‘n wolk is nie.
    Ongelukkig het ek alleen tot daardie gevolgtrekking gekom deur ondersoek, godsdiens geweeg en te lig gevind. Gaan sit vir ‘n slag stoksiel alleen in die veld waar daar geen teken van beskawing is nie dan sal jy besef dat “God” reg rondom jou is.
    Dit het op ‘n dag met my gebeur waar ek eensklaps besef het dat daar nie ‘n “God” bo erens rondsweef nie en dat ek daardie sinlose entiteit nie in my lewe nodig het nie!
    Jy weet mos, daardie entiteit/e wat mos skuld kry van alles wat gebeur en ons nie onself wil verantwoordelik hou vir ons dade en die verkragting van Moeder Natuur nie!

    ErickV

    September 23, 2011 at 13:57

  97. If you search hard, a glimmer of truth every now & then.
    soois: “Ek is deurmekaar!”

    bewilderbeast

    September 23, 2011 at 13:14

  98. Never fails to flabber my gast when “the faithful” kiss HIS ass whenever something good happens and rush around making excuses for HIM whenever anything bad happens. If there was a God and he wiped out my kids and grandkids in a car accident (or allowed them to be wiped out, or however these fools word it), I’d curse him to hell. Worship him?!? Sheeyit!

    bewilderbeast

    September 23, 2011 at 13:12

  99. “God’s Will” wipes out family in horrific road accident. “God’s Will,” eh? Really? This is what godiots say when they’re busy avoiding reality, which is a fulltime occupation with them.

    Con-Tester

    September 23, 2011 at 09:56

  100. Yes, of course you’re confused. It’s in your nature, allegedly god-given. That’s because you haven’t a clue what you’re waffling about, and zero willingness to investigate these questions for yourself impartially and earnestly. You want to be spoonfed just like a toddler. You also think your Holey Babble is a reliable history book. Fine, it may well contain some historical facts. But by that loose standard, so’s Mickey Mouse — and every other bit of fiction ever written that features any bits of history, however parochial.

    In short, you’re still spewing forth kak.

    Con-Tester

    September 22, 2011 at 17:17

  101. Piet Stassen, lekker man! Maar jy moet nie te veel met die ateiste se evolusie-teorie peuter nie. Dit is al grashalmpie wat hulle het om hulle geloof te regverdig. Jy sie, daar is Christene wat nie in evolusie glo nie, en dan is daar Christene wat wel daarin glo en beweer dat God evolusie as instrument vir Sy skepping gebruik het. Ongelukkig moet die ateis in evolusie glo, anders sou hulle mos wonder oor hulle onstaan, en dit mag mos nie God wees nie.

    Groete daar.

    soois

    September 22, 2011 at 17:06

  102. Net vir die grap. Julle ouens gaan vreeslik tekere omdat ek “verkeerdelik” gese het dat ons van ape af kom, terwyl julle se ons en die ape het ‘n “emeenskaplike voorouer”. Nou wat was ons “gemeenskaplike voorouer”? Mens? Aap? Mens-aap? Aap-mens? Ek is deurmekaar!

    soois

    September 22, 2011 at 16:55

  103. ErickV,

    dankie vir die regstelling, maar eintlik was die punt wat ek probeer maak juis dat die evolusieteorie wil beweer dat alle lewe een oorsprong het.

    Antropologie is ‘n baie interessante wetenskap, maar soms ook “confusing”. Interessante feite wat jy weergee, ek het op ‘n stadium iewers gelees dat sommige wetenskaplikes ook beweer dat “Java-man, Piltdown-man, Peking-man, en die sogenaamde homo-erectus” almal aapspesies was en dat die “Neandertalman” mens. Ek wonder natuurlik baie oor die akuraatheid van die datering van sommige fossiele, maar jy is reg, baie van die ontdekkings wil nogal gebeure in die Bybel bevestig, en ek het dit ook gese dat al glo baie nie in die “godsdienstige” kant van die Bybel nie, is dit definitief ‘n “Geskiedenisboek’ om nie eenkant te gooi nie.

    Dan moet ek ook net byvoeg dat ek soms geneig is om alle evolusie gelowiges oor dieselfde kam te skeer en dit is verkeerd. Ek is bewus van baie nie-ateiste wat ook in evolusie glo.

    Malherbe, gaan lees tog net wat ek vir ErickV geskryf het. Tweedens is ek baie bewus van die woordeboek definisie van ‘n wetenskaplike teorie. As jy terugkyk sal jy sien die pun te wat ek daaroor gemaak het. Gaan lees jy liewer self die definisie mooi en met aandag deur, dan sal jy sien hoe daar ‘n skuiwergat ten gunste van die wetenskap ingebou is, m.a.w ‘n teorie is net ‘n moontlike verduideliking, maar wanneer ‘n wetenskaplike ‘n teorie uitdink, met idees en opmerkings om dit te staaf, is dit sommer feit. Bog!!

    En nee, ek het nie nodig om bewyse vir God se bestaan te gaan soek nie, en nee, ek het eers God ontdek en toe gelowig geword. Soos gewoonlik maak jy stellings sonder om my plasings van die begin af te lees.

    Coyne nommer een; Vernon Coyne, ‘n briljante mikrobioloog met verskeie publikasies, maar nee, ek vind nie dat hy vir my siel iets kan doen nie.

    Coyne nommer twee; Jerry Coyne, ‘n baie slim biologie professor en ‘n groot voorstaander vir ateisme. Bekend vir sy “intelligent design” debat. Verskeie tesisse geskryf en twee boeke waarvan ek bewus is, een juis om evolusie te predik. Dus kan hy nog minder vir my siel doen en nee, hy skryf niks wat my van dit wat ek weet kan laat afwyk nie. Jy sien, daar is dit wat mense skryf, baie slim en oortuigend skryf, maar eenvoudig nie kan bewys nie, en dan is daar die Bybel wat oor en oor Sy Waarheid toon.

    Dawkins; Richard Dawkins, nog ‘n bioloog en outeur, voorstaander van evolusie en veral bekend rondom sy gedagtes oor gene in evolsie. Vreeslike interessante teoriee en feeverhale.

    Hitchens; Christopher Hitchens, joernalis en skrywer. Het nogal baie met die politiek gepeuter. Voorstaander van atheisme, hoewel hy die woord ateis as verkeerd beskou. Nog ‘n ou wat verstand gekry het, maar geen wysheid nie. Wat kan hy moontlik vir my inhou? Boggerol.

    Die Bybel; Geskryf deur verskeie doodeenvoudige skrywers, moontlik nie eens baie slim nie, hoewel wysheid by veral Salomo voorgekom het, maar mense wat doodeenvoudig die geskiedkundige gebeure opgeteken het en aan my oordra. Die teoriee en menslike filosofiee nie, nee, feitelike gebeure. En vir my siel? Wonderlik, opwindend, heerlik!!

    soois

    September 22, 2011 at 16:44

  104. 13. Piet Stassen is a brainwashed, brainless Zombie with no knowledge except that found in the Bible!

    ErickV

    September 22, 2011 at 05:51

  105. Sez it all, dunnit? The unfathomable ignorance of the lying fundie drivellist could hardly be made more plain than through the above straw-amoeba shredding exercise (the straw amoeba have yet to evolve into straw men).

    Con-Tester

    September 21, 2011 at 18:35

  106. 1. Name of the latest fossil-find at Sterkfontein: ‘Conjecturalensis ridiculipithecus’.

    2. Definition of an Evolutionist: Someone who invented himself 4,6 billion years ago and then went on to ‘evolve’ into just about everybody else too [it is amazing what a little patience can do].

    3. Definition of an Atheist: Someone who is mad at God because ‘He doesn’t exist’ but nevertheless still has the audacity to pretend He is real anyway [conceded … that will drive just about anybody crazy].

    4. Most preposterous evolutionist scientific-construct of the year: ‘Circulus-et-Probando’, or reasoning-in-circles, for instance with the evolutionist’s favourite piece of unscientific jargon ‘Survival Of The Fittest’.
    Example 1: “Why did she win the beauty contest? [“Because she is the prettiest!”]. “And why is she the prettiest?” [Because she had won the beauty contest!”].
    Example 2: “Why did the rhino survive?” [“Because it is the fittest!”]. “And why is it the fittest?” [“Because it survived!”]. Amazing … they call this crap ‘science’?

    5. Most elusive [i.e. non-existent] evolutionary exhibits [‘missing links’] as empirical evidence for ‘Evolution’ in Nature: [i] The Geologic Column [where is it guys?]; [ii] Transitional- or intermediary-fossils; [iii] Living ‘transmutations’; [iv] ‘Evolution’ through ‘mutations’; [v] ‘Evolution’ through ‘Natural Selection’; [vi] ‘Evolution’ through ‘Punctuated Equilibrium’; [vii] ‘Evolution’ through ‘The Inheritance Of Acquired Characteristics’.

    6. Mathematical theorem of the year [including the atheist-evolutionist’s logical mathematical-conclusion]: “God doesn’t believe in atheists, therefore, atheists do not exist!”

    7. Most preposterous evolutionist-construct of the year: “Life ‘evolved’ in an OXYGEN-FREE atmosphere from a primordial soup-mixture of mud, water, some basic elements and the impact of lightning after it had been raining on the Earth for ‘million of years!” How could it have been an oxygen-free atmosphere if it had been raining on the Earth for ‘millions of years’? Rain is water, and water is H2O … i.e. hydrogen + OXYGEN.

    8. The atheist-evolutionist’s ‘Mission Impossible No.1’: ‘Evolution’ could not have made AMINO ACIDS [the basic building blocks of life] without DNA; But, ‘Evolution’ could also again not have made DNA [in order to make the AMINO ACIDS] without ENZYMES [catalysts]; However, ‘Evolution’ could also not have made ENZYMES [in order to make DNA] without first making AMINO ACIDS [enzymes ARE amino acids. Sorry guys …checkmate].

    9. The atheist-evolutionist’s ‘Mission Impossible Nr.2’: ‘Evolution’ could not have created LIFE without OXYGEN, because LIFE cannot be maintained without OXYGEN; but, on the other hand, ‘Evolution’ could also not have created LIFE with OXYGEN, as the oxygen would have caused the basic elements needed as a precursor to LIFE to immediately oxidise and perish. LIFE could not be kick-started without oxygen; but it could also not be kick-started with oxygen [Sorry guys … checkmate].

    10. Newsbreak of the year: The atheist-evolutionists have apparently established a commission-of-enquiry to investigate how ‘Evolution’ could have made a Universe approx. 30 billion years in diameter, while they know from experience that ‘Evolution’ cannot even fold a little paper-airplane 30 centimetres in diameter.

    11. The atheist-evolutionist’s [most-failed] IQ-question-from-hell during the atheist-evolutionists’ annual initiation-ceremonies: “As an atheist-evolutionist, would you choose to arrange for ‘Evolution’ to ‘evolve’ an ordinary mousetrap [about 5 moving parts] for you, or would you rather buy one from the local hardware-store?” [just answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. Sorry, you can’t phone a friend].
    12. If ‘Evolution’ were really true, why are evolutionists still evolutionists … why don’t they ‘evolve’?

    [Psalms 37:9-13]: “For evildoers shall be cut off; but those who wait on Jehovah, they shall inherit the earth.
    It is but a little while, and the wicked shall not be; yea, you shall search his place, and he shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the earth, and shall delight themselves in the overflowing of peace. The wicked plots against the just, and gnashes on him with his teeth. Jehovah laughs at him; for He sees that his day is coming.”

    Piet Stassen

    September 21, 2011 at 18:21

  107. Soois, die foute wat jy hierbo maak is so teksboek-tipies van kreasoniste, dis werklik lagwekkend en staaf net weereens jul kop-innie-sand metodiek van debatteer. Kan ek jou mooi vra watter bronne jy genader het? Jou retoriek kom direk uit websites soos creation.com. Hoekom sê ek so? Vir die vlg redes:
    1) Jou stelling dat “ons van ape afstam” soos deur Erick uitgelig. Ons en Chimps deel dieselfde voorouers. Die feit dat ons dit as “aapagtige” voorouers beskryf, is bloot toevallig. ‘n Chimpansee (indien hy sou kon), sou ons gesamentlike voorouers kon beskryf as “mensagtig”. Is dit so moeilik om te verstaan?
    2) Jou stelling dat evolusie bloot “‘n teorie is” – ‘n wetenskaplike teorie is iets totaal anders –
    Die vlg def vir “scientific theory” uit Wikepedia: “In scientific usage, the term “theory” is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena. Such theories are constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.[6]
    A scientific theory is a deductive theory, in that, its content is based on some formal system of logic and that some of its elementary theorems are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[5]
    A major concern in construction of scientific theories is the problem of demarcation, i.e., distinguishing those ideas that are properly studied by the sciences and those that are not.
    Theories are intended to be an accurate, predictive description of the natural world.”
    3)Jou stelling: “Punt bly staan dat die fossielerekords heeltemal te kort skiet om die teorie te staaf,…” – Weereens, hierdie stelling stel jou onkunde bloot en is bewys van presies waar jy jou “feite” gaan soek. Fossiele is bloot net nog ‘n bevestiging vir evolusie. Ons is bloot gelukkig om enigsins fossiele te hê wat bestudeer kan word. Maar raai wat Soois. Selfs indien daar nie een enkele fossiel oorgebly het om te bestudeer nie, is die bewyse vir evolusie oorweldigend.
    4)Uit wat jy skryf is dit duidelik dat jy EERSTENS die bestaan van jou god as gegewe aanvaar en AGTERNA vir bewyse soek. Behalwe dat dit onwetenskaplik en oneerlik is, verklaar dit ook hoekom jy nie evolusie kan/wil aanvaar as die feit wat dit is nie.

    Ek het al vele gelowige twak gelees, Soois, insluitend jou heilige bybel. My vraag aan jou is: Het jy al ooit iets anders as apologetiese snert gelees? Al ooit vir Coyne of Dawkins of Hitchens aangepak? Te bang hulle mag jou dalk net oortuig Soois?

    Malherbe

    September 21, 2011 at 17:47

  108. Wanneer hierdie onnosel bedrieër van ’n dof godioot beweer dat hy iets “bestudeer” het, kan jy maar gerus aanvaar dat hy op uiterste twee of drie oppervlakkige paragrafies op ’n kreasionistiese webwerf iewerste probeer lees het — let wel “probeer lees”. Die poging verwandel hom natuurlik oombliklik in ’n hoogs gekwalifiseerde spesialis wie se menings heel en al onbetwisbaar is. Dit is dan fokken voordelig vir die mensdom dat die wetenskap ietwat meer streng en sistematies te kere gaan in verband met hipotese, teorieë, bewyse en feite, anders sou ons nog steeds in die dertiende eeu lewe…

    Con-Tester

    September 21, 2011 at 14:27

  109. Soois,

    Nou meer op ‘n gematiger noot.
    Jy se dat jy ook antropologie bestudeer?
    Wel, ek moet se dat ek ook ‘n bietjie dieper in die vak rond gekrap het.
    Daar is een moerse probleem met die sogenaamde stamboom van die menslike oorsprong.
    Volgens die antropoloe is die jongste skedel van “Homo Erectus” 30,000 jaar oud en die oudste skedel van “Homo Sapiens” 90,000 jaar oud!
    Dan word daar beweer dat “Homo Sapiens” afstam van “Homo Erectus”!
    Nie soos ek dit sien nie. Volgens my is dit heeltemal twee aparte spesies! Miskien is ek die onnosele een maar ek glo nie.
    Nou wil ek ‘n klip in die bos gooi.
    Ek vermoed dat “Homo Erectus” nog nooit uitgesterf het nie en dat “Homo Sapiens” in parralel voortbestaan het! Daar bestaan nou “Homo Erectus” en “Homo Sapiens Sapiens” (ons).
    Is dit nie toeval dat die oudste fossiel van “Homo Sapiens” in Ethiopie gevind is nie?
    Dit is nogal naby Egipte en het Salomo nie getrou met ‘n Ethiopiese prinses nie?
    Dit laat ‘n mens dink ne?

    So, jy sien Soois, ek is definitief nie vas gevang in ‘n eng en onbuigsame evolusie teorie nie!
    Ek het ook geen “Darwanistiese God” nie. My god is Moeder Natuur soos ek al hoeveel keer gese het.
    ‘n Mens kan dalk aanklank vind in sekere Bybel verhale maar dit is nog nie ‘n bewys dat daar ‘n ou omie op ‘n wolk is wat ons dophou nie!
    Sorry om jou teleur te stel!

    ErickV

    September 21, 2011 at 12:43

  110. :mrgreen: I can’t wait for all the transparent, feeble and mendacious excuses that are sure to follow on that one! :mrgreen:

    
    

    “No, but you have to read it metaphorically!

    “Evolution is just a theory!”

    “Atheists are liars!”

    “You too, you too!”

    Yeah, right. How fuckin’ original. Even in the face of such incontrovertible evidence of their dishonesty, ignorance and stupidity, these godiots carry on regardless. What you won’t see is any genuine admission of error. (The latter is what is known as “a potentially self-defeating proposition”.)

    Con-Tester

    September 21, 2011 at 12:38

  111. Soois,

    Jou woorde:

    ” It says that we come from apes, which in turn came from lower mammals, which comes from reptiles or fish or whatever, which came from groups of living cells, which comes from a single cell, which came from a mixture of gasses etc. (NON LIVING MATTER!) which came from the “Big Bang”.”

    So, ek het jou seker dan verkeerd verstaan! Jy het nie gese dat ons van ape afstam nie?

    My woorde:

    “Ons en die ape het slegs dieselfde gesamentlike oorsprong.”

    Nou wil jy beweer dat ek die een is wat gese het ons stam van ape af!

    Holy shit!!!!

    ErickV

    September 21, 2011 at 12:11

  112. Incoherent babble, fabrication and bullshit. Expect no less from a conceited, self-serving godiot twit. That’s why these morons are so hilarious. They’ll say literally anything to maintain their idiotic fictions. Look up the “No true Scotsman” fallacy and learn something new (assuming you have sufficient intellectual honesty for that — hope does spring eternal). Reinventing history and ignoring facts isn’t magically going to change the great big pile of pachyderm shit on the carpet that this meek’n’mild, touchy-feely version of crushtianity is a very, very recent development, and that there are still many big pockets of the radical kind spread around the world, particularly in central Africa.

    Con-Tester

    September 21, 2011 at 09:47

  113. “Religion drove those planes into those buildings, it’s amazing how good religion is at mobilizing people to do awful, murderous things. There is this dark side to it, and anyone who loves religious experience, including me, better begin to own that there is a serious shadow side to this thing.”

    Religion? Yes, the murderous terrorist misusing religion to mobilize the believer, who is desperately seeking eternal life. This is exactly why I make the distinction between religion and Christianity. I see eyes rolling and possibly the non-believer wanting to skip reading further, but please, just give me a proper chance to explain the difference.

    You see, the religious, and I do mean those that believe in the same God as I, are those that do not believe in the salvation that Jesus has brought with His sacrifice on the cross. With other words, those believers who are caught up on the Old Testament of the Holy Bible, those who believe that they have to do something to deserve or to buy salvation. A Christian has found salvation with Jesus Christ and will never murder or plunder in the name of religion or more accurately, in the name of Christianity.

    You see my friends, who are the real murderers? The non-believer, and I say non believer or false prophet, who misuse those who are mislead. You want to keep on telling me of how many faiths and churches there are, who all believe in the Bible, and you are correct, but only a handfull of them are “Christian”, and no Christian church preaches mayhem and murder, but instead love and peace.

    soois

    September 21, 2011 at 09:23

  114. And there you have it yet again: “Evolution is just a theory, nyah nyah-nyah nyah nyah!

    
    

    The stupidity and ignorance continue unabated, amply supported by the Holey Babble’s Eternal and Immutable Truth™.

    Con-Tester

    September 20, 2011 at 17:26

  115. O ja ErickV,

    dit is maklik om te se dat my bronne noue kontak met teologie het, maar dit is weereens ‘n skaamtelose poging om my te diskrediteer. Die waarheid is dat my bronne eenvoudig net die wetenskap is. Maar gaan kyk gerus na die lys van wetenskaplikes wat eers later in hulle lewens Christene geword het. Die vraag is, hoekom?

    soois

    September 20, 2011 at 17:25

  116. ErickV,

    Nee, jy lees seker nie mooi nie, ek het nie gese ons is van ape afkomstig nie. Julle gode, die Darwiniste se dat “aapagtige” fossiele as die oorblyfsels van ons direkte voorvaders beskou kan word, en dat hulle blykbaar weer van meer eenvoudige soogdiere afkomstig is en so aan en so voorts, doodeenvoudig ‘n klomp snert. Wys jou, ons word as mense wat nie saamstem oor dinge nie beskou, en hier wil julle nou verskil oor die evolusieteorie, want jy se nou by implikasie dat ons en die groot ape nie dieselfde voorvader iewers het nie, en dit is in direkte teenstelling met die “evolusieteorie”. Punt bly staan dat die fossielerekords heeltemal te kort skiet om die teorie te staaf, en dit weet ek omdat ek juis nie net die BYBEL lees nie, maar ook oa antropologie betudeer. Trouens, ek vind die wetenskap uiters interessant, maar sien ook dit wat onvolledig is raak, m.a.w daar is die “feite” wat reeds onomwonde bewys is in die wetenskap en dan is daar die “teoriee”, goed deurdenkde baie interessante “moontlikhede”, wat die wetenskap hoop om eendag te kan bewys. Ek sal nie op daardie moontlikheid my geld egter verwed nie.

    Groete daar.

    soois

    September 20, 2011 at 17:16

  117. The following is a transcript of a comic strip I found in my archives, date & author unknown. It’s title is “An open letter to religious people: You are idiots and I hate you” and it’s presented by Poorly Thought-out Comix. Note that the title is inspired by the godiots’ own intellectual level.

    Hold on now! Before you go and get the wrong idea, this ISN’T another comic about why religion is bad, or why it’s wrong. Of course, it IS bad, and it IS wrong. But this is so blindingly obvious that it no longer needs to be said.

    Instead, this is a direct attack on you, the religious person. The argument? That your failure to reject religion indicates that you are colossally, irredeemably stupid.

    Religion is fundamentally flawed in a staggering variety of ways, to the point that a curious child can bring down the entire framework of baloney with an innocent question. Such questions include, “Why is there evil?”, “Who made god?” and “Why should I trust you after that Santa Claus thing?

    But you didn’t ASK those questions, did you? Or if you did, you accepted the pathetic rationalisations that were offered without further contemplation. Perhaps you were afraid to ask, or even to think about it. Your comforting little worldview mattered more to you than the truth.

    But can this critical failure really be blamed on a fear of the consequences of religion being wrong? Is a godless world too terrible to contemplate? The idea that Santa Claus isn’t real is also unpleasant, and this provides a deterrent to disbelief. But not a significant one. God doesn’t even bring people presents. In fact, in most religions he’s kind of a jerk. Plagues and laws and smiting and eternal torture. Is this really so attractive an idea that people cannot let it go?

    Perhaps disinterest is the only real problem. After all, if a man can’t read Greek, that doesn’t make him stupid. It simply means he doesn’t care to read Greek. But can a lack of interest in the fundamental nature of reality really be justified in this way? Maybe so. After all, it makes little difference in day-to-day living whether god is up there or not.

    And yet, shouldn’t the fact that that god’s existence has no major consequences itself raise a red flag!? Tee hee!!!

    The idea that a being with immense powers exists, but never tampers with the world in a noticeable way is an absurdly childish hypothetical scenario. It’s “I’m not touching you!” on a cosmic scale. Granted, we used to see a lot more evidence of god’s tampering than we do today. Lightning, disease, floods, butterflies, the sun. But even then, a bunch of inexplicable things hardly adds up to a big magical man who you can’t see.

    And of course, all this “evidence” wilted and died with sufficient rational enquiry. The sun and stars turned out to be big nuclear furnaces, diseases and butterflies are now well understood, and lightning is just an electrical discharge. Indeed, from leopard spots to pregnancy to the shape of the earth, religion has been proved wrong, wrong, wrong.

    It would take an IDIOT not to see a pattern in this. And that’s exactly what you are.

    The icing on this pathetic cake is that you realise all the OTHER religions are wrong, you just have a blind spot towards your own. Perhaps you have a vague awareness that religion is retarded, but you never really give it up because your thoughts are too disorganised to deal with it. If this is the case, and your mind is a dusty closet of odds and ends, motivational phrases and vacation photos, I have nothing but contempt for you.

    I refuse to respect religious beliefs, and I refuse to respect people who hold them. Your wilful ignorance is inexcusable and it disgusts me.

    Con-Tester

    September 20, 2011 at 14:48

  118. Now you can see that the Homo Erectus species still exsist just by looking at all the drivel they utter!

    ErickV

    September 20, 2011 at 10:57

  119. There, you see? Lying and ignorance are so deeply ingrained in the fundie twits’ psyche that they can’t help themselves talking kak. Their strong propensity for tu quoque is symptomatic of the fact that they have neither evidence nor argument anywhere near sufficient to establish the truth of their childish fantasies. Their predilection for naïvely confabulated straw amoeba (they have yet to evolve into men) of evolution signals their inability to comprehend a plenitude of basic and relatively simple facts.

    Take this moron soois, for example. He seems to think that repeating “evolution is just a theory” over and over and over again is going to cause the hundreds of thousands of scientists who know infinitely more about it than a billion sooises ever could suddenly to see their alleged error and abandon their studies and acquired knowledge. I mean, what kind of supremely arrogant arsehole do you need to be to think that you can overturn the150 years’ dedicated scientific study of many thousands of experts without a shred of credible evidence on your side, never mind any kind of scientific qualifications!? How conceited a fuckwit do you need to be to presume your own scantily-informed view of things is inerrant!?

    And Mickey Mouse also contains many historically accurate references. Therefore, Mickey Mouse must be the real source of Eternal and Immutable Truth™, and he says evolution is true ’cos mice can be men. To say otherwise is to tell filthy lies, just like the godiot fundie twits always do.

    Con-Tester

    September 20, 2011 at 10:12

  120. Soois,
    Wat my opval met jou skrywe is dat jou navorsing baie staatmaak op die “young earth creationists” wat almal baie nou kontak met teologie het, aldus onbetroubaar.
    Nog ‘n ding, jy maak dieselfde moerse vout as jou mede gelowiges/onkundiges as jy se dat ons van ape afstam!
    Ons en die ape het slegs dieselfde gesamentlike oorsprong. Fokkit, kan julle DIT nie eers verstaan nie?
    Ek dink jy moet ‘n bietjie antropologie bestudeer sodat jy ‘n bietjie meer kennis kan kry en vergeet die “young earth creationists”. Hulle sal enige stront (soos Kent Hovind die bedrieer) uitdink om evolusie verkeerd te probeer bewys!

    ErickV

    September 20, 2011 at 09:43

  121. Piet,
    Laat ek ook ‘n eiertjie le.
    Laat ons mekaar van die begin af goed verstaan. Ek is ook ‘n andersdenkende/ongelowige/whatever.
    Ek stel ook glad nie belang om toe gegooi te word deur versies uit daai boek nie. Dit is water op ‘n eend se rug aangesien ek nie belang stel in ‘n klomp oorvertellings wat se oorsprong uit die brons eeu deur herders vertel is nie.
    Wat sou jy gedoen het as daar glad nie ‘n Bybel was nie? Hoe sou jy gelewe het? Sou jy maar dan ‘n ander godsdiens gesoek het om aan te hang aangesien die fundies maar baie te lui is om hulle breinselle te laat werk. Julle soek iets uit ‘n heilige boek om vir julle riglyne in die lewe te gee.
    In elk geval, waar is jou “Liewe Jesus”? Ek het hom nog nooit gesien nie. Ek stel nie belang in verbeeldingsvlugte nie, slegs die harde werklikheid. Soos ek die storie sien is die drie wat net een is slegs geestelik daar. Sorry, daarin stel ek glad nie belang nie.
    Jy weet, die ironie van die storie is dat die meeste andersdenkendes, soos Ateiste, die Bybel dalk beter ken as die meeste fundies. Ons het daai padjie alreeds geloop!
    Jy sien, die verskil is, jy het NET die Bybel. Ons het duisende ander boeke om kennis in te win!

    ErickV

    September 20, 2011 at 09:26

  122. Let’s talk about dishonesty, shall we?

    First of all, evolution is, contrary to what people are made to belief by the dishonest ones, not a science, but an UNPROVEN theory, and this theory is more and more being rejected by honest scientists. I am being hammered by the so-called absence of proof for the truthfullness of the BIBLE, but in fact more and more evidence of the BIBLE truth are being discovered regularly.

    The story of king Bélsasar for instance. The BIBLE describes this king having a great party in his royal hall, using the best gold utencils amnd this hall being described in detail, and then this big hand of GOD writing on the wall. From this we even today use the words, “the writing’s on the wall. Not long ago this hall was in fact discovered covered by thousands of years sand, and it is exactly like it was described. Also, evidence of the ten plagues were discovered to mention but only two examples. There are many.

    Now, let’s get back to evolution and the lack of evidence. Most people are under the impression that evolution means that we evolved from apes or ape-like animals, but in fact evolution goes farther than this. It says that we come from apes, which in turn came from lower mammals, which comes from reptiles or fish or whatever, which came from groups of living cells, which comes from a single cell, which came from a mixture of gasses etc. (NON LIVING MATTER!) which came from the “Big Bang”.

    If this were true, there would have been an abundance of fossil records, which there aren’t. All that we have are fossil records of ape-like or man-like creatures, with sudden and very different features, no fossils depicting the gradual changes that there should have been, and I quote; “A piece of news that didn’t get much press is that in 1980, Darwin’s “Gradualism”, which had species evolving one into another over “billions” of years, was actually rejected by a conference of top evolutionists meeting in Chicago because of the obvious (and embarrassing) lack of evidence in the fossil record.” The result was that scientists changed their story and said that evolution happened so fast that there were no gradual changes, and they called this new THEORY “punctuated equilibrium”. How’s that for sticking with a story. Honest, dishonest?

    Then there is this little problem with carbon dating, and more precisely, the inaccurateness of this science. I will quote a few examples; “Science Magazine revealed that some shells of snails, though still alive when tested by Carbon 14 methods were dated to be 26,000 years old.
    The geographic periodical Antarctic recently reported that a newly-killed seal when tested by Carbon 14 methods were dated to be dead for 1,300 years!
    In the same sea near Hawaii, rocks were formed by a volcano only 200 years ago. They were dated by Potassium-Argon method to up to 22 million years old. Other rocks near Hualalei (Hawaii) are known to be formed by volcanic action in 1801. Potassium-Argon dated these young rocks at 160 million to 3 million years of age.
    Also, there are some methods of dating that show the world to be not billions of years old, but surprisingly young. In his book “In the Beginning” Dr. Walter T. Brown, Jr. from M.I.T. cites 28 dating methods that point to a young earth and universe.”

    I have already touched on the difference between micro- and macro-evolution before and therefore I am not going to repeat myself, but please go and read up on it and the failures of scientists toying with nature, unsuccessfully.

    The truth of the matter is that Darwinism or evolution are being kept alive by the dishonsty of atheists to combat Christianism. It is the only tool they have to try and discredit the BIBLE.

    Fairytale? I believe evolution is the real Mickey Mouse and that Christianity makes a lot more sense, in fact the more I look at evolution and read up on it, the more it is more likely for the tooth-fairy to exist that it is possible for evolution to exist.

    soois

    September 20, 2011 at 09:10

  123. Yeah, we atheists are just soooo misguided. We secretly know that your skydaddy exists but we deny him because it’s the easy way.

    The problem is that you fundie twits keep talking the smelliest piles of ridiculous and fabricated bullshit with such conviction, for example the above bit of invention. In reality, you idiots want the comfort of “knowing” that you’re Oh! Soooo! Special! and you want it so desperately that you’ll subvert anything and everything just to maintain your fantasies.

    You people are a tired fuckin’ joke and your intellectual dishonesty makes me ashamed to be a member of the same species.

    And you’re not my friend, see? Because you’re not, see? Friends don’t go all smug and superior on your ass, so you haven’t earned that right, see?

    Con-Tester

    September 18, 2011 at 21:03

  124. Dear Con – Tester,

    The question that puzzles me most: If God does not exist, why do people [e.g. atheists, evolutionists, satanists, pagans etc.] hate, resist and fight Him so much? How can one hate someone that does not exist? [Ridiculous, isn’t it?]. Why don’t you then admit outright that people like you hate Him because, on the contrary, He actually does exist but that you have, instead, chosen the opposite path of least resistance, the opposite path of the easy, low road and convenience of the darkness. And, obviously, the Light [Jesus Christ] is now irritating you like crazy?

    During the seventies, as a young, hyper-intellectual ‘wannabe-atheist’, I also [just like you] used to turn against and run from God, but today, after many hardships and lots of failure and tears, I had to learn through the hard way that there is but one Heavenly Father to cushion the fall of the self-sufficient, the arrogant and the self-righteous; one Holy Spirit to comfort the bruised and broken ego of the obnoxious and the conceited; and only one Good Shepherd [Jesus of Nazareth] to embrace me with His incomparable friendship and unconditionally cleanse me [from the many sins and moral and social indiscretions of my past] with His holy blood … blood that was shed at an enormous price at Calvary for you too, Con -Tester!

    Jesus has said:

    Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil.

    Let me put it to you this way, Con – Tester: When you’ve come to the end of your tether; when you do not know which way to turn anymore; when you are finally despondent and hopeless and all your secular wisdom and youthful bravado had finally departed; when you are absolutely down and out … just drop to your knees and call upon the Name of Jesus Christ, and He will reach down and draw you from the mire of hopelessness and despair, and make your life brandnew again … and He will do that in spite of every hard and unkind thing you had said [also about Him] … in spite of all the profanity … in spite of the bitter hatred and all your hidden hostilities. He will embrace you with the open arms of Godly-forgiveness and an agape-love that will boul you over for the rest of Eternity.
    If He did it for a miserable and Hell-deserving sinner like me, why won’t He do it for you too? Life is about choices, Con -Tester, so don’t let your ego get in the way and allow the wrong choice keep you from a Friend [Jesus Christ] whose personal acquaintance is worth more than all the diamonds in the World. Choose the Light [Jesus Christ], not the darkness [Satan]. Remember this: The speed of light is approx. 300 000 kms in vacuo, whereas the speed of darkness is ZERO. It is no contest, Con – Tester, sorry.

    Kind regards,

    Your friend,

    Piet Stassen.

    Piet Stassen

    September 18, 2011 at 20:48

  125. Yes, ’cos citing storybook verses about that Jewish zombie wannabe god Jeeeeebusssst! makes everything better. It works especially well on children and retarded grown-ups…

    Con-Tester

    September 18, 2011 at 09:17

  126. Jhn 8:12 Then Jesus spoke again to them, saying, I am the Light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

    Jhn 8:12 iterum ergo locutus est eis Iesus dicens ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae

    Jhn 8:12 Πάλιν οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐλάλησε λέγων· ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου· ὁ ἀκολουθῶν ἐμοὶ οὐ μὴ περιπατήσῃ ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ, ἀλλ᾿ ἕξει τὸ φῶς τῆς ζωῆς.

    Jhn 8:12 Jezus dan sprak wederom tot henlieden, zeggende: Ik ben het licht der wereld; die Mij volgt, zal in de duisternis niet wandelen, maar zal het licht des levens hebben.

    Jhn 8:12 En Jesus het weer met hulle gespreek en gesê: Ek is die lig van die wêreld; wie My volg, sal sekerlik nie in die duisternis wandel nie, maar sal die lig van die lewe hê.

    Piet Stassen

    September 18, 2011 at 08:48

  127. 1Jhn 1:3 that which we have seen and heard we declare unto you, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.
    1Jhn 1:4 And we write these things to you so that your joy may be full.
    1Jhn 1:5 And this is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.
    1Jhn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.
    1Jhn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.

    – Jesus of Nazareth –

    Piet Stassen

    September 18, 2011 at 08:40

  128. Matt. 11:27 All things are delivered to Me by My Father. And no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son will reveal Him.
    Matt. 11:28 Come to Me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
    Matt. 11:29 Take My yoke on you and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest to your souls.
    Matt. 11:30 For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.

    – Jesus of Nazareth –

    Piet Stassen

    September 18, 2011 at 08:29

  129. That’s a perfectly sensible move for an all-wise, all-powerful, all-good creator okie with Alzheimer’s and PMS, considering s/he fucked it all up in the first place.

    Con-Tester

    September 17, 2011 at 21:23

  130. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son [Jesus Christ] so that whosoever believed in Him [Jesus Christ] should not perish, but have Everlasting Life [John 3:16].
    Want so lief het God die wereld gehad dat Hy Sy eniggebore Seun [Jesus Christus] gegee het, sodat elkeen wat in Hom [Jesus Christus] glo, nie verlore mag gaan nie, maar die Ewige Lewe kan he [Johannes 3:16].

    Piet Stassen

    September 17, 2011 at 15:22

  131. Well, judging by his/her fans, it’s quite a safe bet that this god oke is neither especially intelligent nor particularly honest, and rather more mean-spirited, conceited and devious. Shall we refer to that as Con-Tester’s Wager?

    Con-Tester

    September 15, 2011 at 17:33

  132. Piet Stassen: Do you believe the bulldust you’ve been sold by your dominee, or do you believe THE BIBLE? Because if you believe the BIBLE I hope you agree that we should kill cheeky kids – yes, even your kids if they misbehave.
    Because when Elisha went up to Bethel some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. “Go up baldhead,” they shouted, “go up baldhead!” The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. That’ will bloody teach them!
    Read that BIBLE of yours, Piet: (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB) – don’t just believe the bulldust.

    bewilderbeast

    September 15, 2011 at 15:40

  133. Con-T, I love Homer Simpson’s wager! Here’s my response to the Pascal challenge I dish up when religious friends raise it:
    If there is a god I’m wagering he’s intelligent and honest. So when I get to the pearly gates he’s going to say “Hey! Why didn’t you believe in me, huh?” And I’m going to answer “Sorry, boss (all respectful and humble) but there was no evidence”; And he is going to smile and wave me through, because his actual criteria (he’s intelligent and honest, remember?) is just that you’re a good oke.
    He then looks over my shoulder and sees a whole bunch of dominees, priests, rabbis, cardinals, cannons, rear-gunners, televangelists and popes and says “Hey! You lot! Downstairs!”

    bewilderbeast

    September 15, 2011 at 15:22

  134. Another pastor accused of sticking his vinger in ’n ander ou se paai

    Must be something in the water.

    Con-Tester

    September 15, 2011 at 11:23

  135. Beste Piet.

    Baie welkom.

    Toe ek so drie jaar gelede hier begin deelneem het, was ek, wat jy kan noem, ‘n fundamentalistiese Christen.

    Vandag kan ek nie langer glo in, onder andere, die maagdelike geboorte, die opstanding en die hemelvaart nie.

    Wat meer is, daar bestaan by my geen twyfel dat Jesus van Nasaret nie die Messias, die Christus is nie, en nog minder die seun van God en God self as deel van die Drie-Eenheid, waarin ek ook nie langer glo nie.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    September 15, 2011 at 06:07

  136. Dear Piet Stassen,

    Now that your name error has been pointed out to you and you have made suitable adjustments, you can safely ignore the other errors you have committed which I have brought to your attention so far. I give you my permission, but only for those so far.

    Honestly,
    Con-Tester

    P.S. Note the line breaks. C-T

    Con-Tester

    September 14, 2011 at 21:25

  137. Dear Con-Tester, Your profane language reveals a remarkable lack of spiritual depth, accompanied by a debilitating bitterness and a furious dose of hidden anger. Come to Jesus, the humble carpenter from Nazareth, and your life will never be the same again. I also used to be an atheist [when I was still ‘evolving’] but have turned 180 degrees in my tracks to follow the most decent person [Jesus Christ] that had ever stepped onto this miserable little third rock from the Sun. Con-Tester, how are you going to deal with your sin in Eternity without the BLOOD of Jesus? How are you going to deal with your conscience in Eternity without the Holy Spirit? How are you going to face the Heavenly Father after you had trampled underfoot His offer of peace, justification and salvation through the sacrifice of Calvary? You can dare to live without God, Con-Tester, but can you really afford to die without Him? May God bless you. Kind regards, PietStassen.

    Piet Stassen

    September 14, 2011 at 21:06

  138. Are you talking to me? My name isn’t Doug Stanhope but your confusion on that simple point is deliciously revealing…

    You have only your intellectually stagnant and intransigent godiot ilk to thank for my “profane language.” Try to pay attention by reading more widely than your Holey Babble — I suggest that you start with the entries on this blog together with their comments — and you may yet discover why.

    You should try Homer Simpson’s Wager, rather than that stale old Pascal dude’s: What if you’re worshipping the wrong god? You’re just seriously pissing off the right one, so it’s a safer bet to worship none of them.

    Con-Tester

    September 14, 2011 at 20:17

  139. Doug Stanhope, Your profane language reveals a remarkable lack of spiritual depth, accompanied by a debilitating bitterness and a furious dose of hidden anger. Come to Jesus, the humble carpenter from Nazareth, and your life will never be the same again. I also used to be an atheist [when I was still ‘evolving’] but have turned 180 degrees in my tracks to follow the most decent person [Jesus Christ] that had ever stepped onto this miserable little third rock from the Sun. Question: Doug, how are you going to deal with your sin in Eternity without the BLOOD of Jesus? How are you going to deal with your conscience in Eternity without the Holy Spirit? How are you going to face the Heavenly Father after you had trampled underfoot His offer of peace, justification and salvation through the sacrifice of Calvary? You can dare to live without God, but can you really afford to die without Him? Kind regards, PietStassen.

    Piet Stassen

    September 14, 2011 at 18:55

  140. A little bit of religion might be a barely tolerable thing provided that:—

    (1) Godiots acquired the necessary intellectual integrity and mustered the appropriate intellectual uprightness to acknowledge openly that their beliefs are founded on little else besides epistemological quicksand;

    (2) Godiots accepted that they have the burden of proving their claims and stopped committing the same tedious slew of fallacies every time;

    (3) Godiots stopped trying to defend their fairytales as Absolute Truth™;

    (4) Godiots stopped telling everyone else how wrong they are and started seriously examining their own creed impartially and objectively;

    (5) Godiots started practising consistently, reliably and unfailingly the peace, love, tolerance and other virtues they claim above all else as their own, rather than doing so only when it suits their purposes;

    (6) Godiots stopped viewing all criticism of their beliefs and practices as misplaced, and instead started dealing with it in a coherent and consequent way;

    (7) Godiots started mounting some vaguely adequate arguments and/or evidence in support of their claims;

    (8) Godiots stopped claiming divine approval whenever their actions or assertions are rightfully questioned;

    (9) Godiots recognised that if they cannot prove their claims, they do not possess any actual knowledge, let alone special knowledge; and

    (10) Godiots stopped fucking up children’s critical faculties and withholding religion, like they do with pornography, from them until they are old enough to deal with it.

    Since not one of the above is likely to happen anytime soon, never mind all of them, there’s just one thing for it: Keep pissing on their stupid beliefs.

    Comedian Doug Stanhope once said something along the lines of us living in an age where people keep both a GPS device and a crucifix on their cars’ dashboards. Pithily telling observation, that one…

    Con-Tester

    September 13, 2011 at 19:56


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: