http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4839

-Johnny (Wait a minute, there, that's not what it says in
the Bible.)

Johnny wrote:

The Creator made those beads to fool us into thinking the world and
humankind are much older than the Bible says. It is a test of faith.
Like carbon dating.

theBZA wrote:


"The Creator" is not an entity - much as you would like her to be.
And you should know - you can't fool mother nature.

$Bill wrote:


Your sarcastic shot at me aside, Bill, sometimes your
inability to get the point of jokes amazes me. As does your
obstinate refusal to recognize the personification of
natural phenomenon as a rhetorical device, not necessarily a
religious manifestation. In short, you are a humorless,
inflexible ignoramus with an anti-religious chip on his
shoulder. No one is arguing that "Mother Nature" or
Creator" are entities, or even deities. They are fucking
figures of speech for nature, numbskull. Get it?

As for your shot, you can take your personal dislike for me
and stick it where the sun doesn't shine, or if you live
near the sea you can toss it in Davy Jones' Locker. Either
get with the spirit of the thread or stay home lest you be
mistaken for a damned troll.

-Johnny (Sheesh but it's hard to talk to serious dullards.)

P.S. And don't give me any bullshit about Davy Jones (the
mythological sea spirit who watches over the dead in the
deep blue sea and whose locker is a euphemism for death) not
being an entity, duh.

Johnny wrote:


Hmm, I thought I was replying to theBZA. Maybe you should read
the attributions above and get off my back. Nothing was directed
at you personal or otherwise. He made a creationist argument to
try to refute scientific evidence.


You have to be the most insulting poster in the group. The only
accurate stmt above is I am anti-religious - esp. fanatics.


theBZA said "The Creator made" - I don't see how you can interpret
that as not being a referral to an entity - you being the English
expert and all.


My only dislike for you is the way you insult posters (ref above).
Didn't your mother ever tell you "If you can't say something nice,
don't say anything at all" ?


More insults.


PS: Johnny, still beating the dead horse.

$Bill wrote:


Your "Mother Nature" crack was the spur, and you know it.
See below.


I call like I see them, especially when they expose their
ignorance in public.


How many time does it have to be explained to you that those
expressions are figures of speech, personifications of
natural phenomenon? Like Father Time, for another example.
Damn, you are dense.


My father taught me not to suffer fools gladly.


And most eminently deserved based on repeated incidences
demonstrating that your ignorance is a mile wide and an your
intellect an inch deep.


"Davy Jones" is another example of a personifying figure of
speech not to be taken literally. Get the concept yet?

And you beat the dead horse with your "mother nature" crack,
and you damn well know that was a slap at me for a previous
"discussion" with you on the subject of it being a figure of
speech for the personification of nature and not an
anthropomorphic deity such as Jehovah, for example, who,
like all gods, cannot be an entity anyway since He is a
mythological creature. And that answers every one of your
dissembling replies as well your continuing contumacious
ignorance that BZA was kidding along with me and no more
meant that "Creator" was some anthropomorphic deity than
"Mother Nature" was meant to be one in our previous
quarreling on this point.

-Johnny (You tried to be clever, like with your snide crack
about my English expertise, which, by the way, is
considerable, and I called you to task on it. If you don't
want shit, don't dish it, even inferentially.)

Johnny wrote:


My mother nature "crack" was directed to theBZA - quit butting into
our conversation. It was extremely simple - he said "made those
beads to 'fool' us..." and I immediately thought of the 1970's butter
commercial "It's Not Nice to Fool With Mother Nature" and thought I'd
make a little joke with him. How your paranoid self got involved in
our fun is beyond me. Plus I'm a big fan of mother nature.


Mother Nature is, but the Creator isn't. You may take it for
being the same, I don't. Since when does your opinion rule all ?
The Creator signifies a being to me and the verb made makes it
even more obvious. The Creator is just another term for God -
not Mother Nature.

Creator \Cre*a"tor\ (kr[-e]*[=a]"t[~e]r), n. [L. creator: cf. F.
cr['e]ateur.]
One who creates, produces, or constitutes. Specifically, the
Supreme Being.
[1913 Webster]

To sin's rebuke and my Creater's praise. --Shak.
[1913 Webster]


My mother taught me to try to be polite and understanding (to
the best of my ability).


More insults.


Not interested in a Davey Jones discussion.


You're totally wrong again - my discussion was not with you
and had no bearing on any previous discussion. What have
you been smoking - you're really getting paranoid and insulting.


I'm quite aware of your English expertise - that's why I
mentioned it. I had only 1 class in technical writing in
college and don't begin to profess your kind of expertise.
Because of that expertise you should have caught my drift
and didn't. Not to mention you butted in on a conversation
that wasn't directed at you at all.

PS:
When you first entered this group, I thought I had found a
soul-mate and enjoyed all of your posts which showed similar
thinking to my own in many cases. Lately, all you can do is
put down and berate people that don't agree with you - that's
the part I can do without.

PPS:
Go back and read this thread and find one place where I
directed anything at you prior to you chastising me. If
you find something, it shows you're paranoid because nothing
was directed to you prior to your response to me.

$Bill wrote:


Then you didn't understand the spoof BZA and I were sharing
in the first place.


Since you came into MY thread (I was the original poster) my
joke, and BZA's return joke with your knee-jerk
anti-religion paranoia, all serious and missing the spoof
entirely.


It was used figuratively and sarcastically as part the spoof
of Creationism, not literally. How many times does this
have to be explained to you. Oh, I see, if you admit to
getting it your defense of your criticism of BZA for daring
to use it as if the biblical Creator were an entity, which
he did not do in the first place, falls apart. It's an ego
thing with you, I guess; you did the same thing to my use of
Mother Nature as a metaphor for Evolution awhile back. The
similarity of your attacks prompted me to respond to your
nonsense and obvious failure to appreciate the present
original posting in the humorous spirit with which it was
posted.


And your lame defense of your unwarranted, clueless, and
silly criticism deserves nothing else.


You miss the point again. Probably intentionally this time.
Sigh. That was another example of a personifying figure
of speech, like Father Time; it was not the subject matter.


When you come in in the middle of a thread I started and
criticize the first exchange between me and someone who was
responding to me, both of us with tongues firmly planted in
our cheeks, your discussion is with me whether you think so
or not and whether you like it or not.

Well, your criticism certainly had no bearing on the spoof
BZA and I were sharing, that's for sure. It was wholly
gratuitous and unreasonably critical due to your total lack
of understanding of the joke (THE FUCKING JOKE, get it yet?)
that BZA and I were making and compounded by your religious
paranoia.


I butted in? You were an officious intermeddler in a joke
between me an BZA, as pointed out above and below.


I think we can damned well do without each other in all
respects from now on and never look back. I argue
rationally and civilly with people who argue rationally,
civilly, and on point. I berate and insult people who come
on like imbeciles either knowing nothing about what they are
talking about or pushing some emotional prejudice, such as
your emotion-driven religious prejudices, in this case
objecting to a rhetorical use of the term "Creator" to spoof
the Bible.


You took me to task for daring to call nature "Mother
Nature" a while back in another discussion as if I were some
kind of religious nut, and your Mother Nature crack in this
thread naturally rang a bell. That finished any respect I
had for your rationality when religion is the subject. You
have a real sore spot about religion; you are so hateful of
it (as opposed to reasonable criticism of it and the
practices of those who abuse it) that any mention of it sets
you off.

And as for butting into a conversation, I started this
fucking thread to begin with, BZA came back to me with a
joke on my parenthetical joke about Biblical creationism,
and you butted in to take him to task for using a figure of
speech to make fun of Biblical creationism. You are the
interloper.

How many times do you have to be told that BZA was not using
the dictionary definition of "Creator" in the religious
sense, but was using it to mock THAT "Creator" by kidding on
the square (in line with my joke) that Homo sapiens as a
self-cognitive animal was "created" in the figurative sense
(get it?) long before the Biblical "Creator says He created us.

If you don't get it by now that neither BZA nor I are
Bible-thumpers, you are hopeless, so I am out of this
thread. It has became a waste of time.

-Johnny (Whew.)