What's a fundamentalist doing on RJ?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2011 10:13 AM GMT
    What's a fundamentalist troll (jockfever) doing on a gay site like RJ, preaching pseudoscience?
    He must be gay. A gay fundamentalist? I never heard of that oxymoron before.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2011 8:30 PM GMT
    Just because a person is gay doesn't mean he can't also be spiritually immature and intellectually unsophisticated.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 25, 2011 3:53 AM GMT
    Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.

    Small minds have a tough time grasping that a person can be Christian, pro-Constitution, and gay in that order.

    The theory of evolution is at the top of the pseudo-science list.

    "The actual evidence shows that major features of the fossil record are an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution; that early development in vertebrate embryos is more consistent with separate origins than with common ancestry; that non-coding DNA is fully functional, contrary to neo-Darwinian predictions; and that natural selection can accomplish nothing more than artificial selection—which is to say, minor changes within existing species.

    Faced with such evidence, any other scientific theory would probably have been abandoned long ago. Judged by the normal criteria of empirical science, Darwinism is false. Its persists in spite of the evidence, and the eagerness of Darwin and his followers to defend it with theological arguments about creation and design suggests that its persistence has nothing to do with science at all."

    ...Darwinists manipulate the evidence and mix it with theology to recycle a false theory that should have been discarded long ago."

    Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California at Berkeley
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Aug 25, 2011 12:19 PM GMT
    jockfever saidGreat minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.

    Small minds have a tough time grasping that a person can be Christian, pro-Constitution, and gay in that order.

    The theory of evolution is at the top of the pseudo-science list.

    "The actual evidence shows that major features of the fossil record are an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution; that early development in vertebrate embryos is more consistent with separate origins than with common ancestry; that non-coding DNA is fully functional, contrary to neo-Darwinian predictions; and that natural selection can accomplish nothing more than artificial selection—which is to say, minor changes within existing species.

    Faced with such evidence, any other scientific theory would probably have been abandoned long ago. Judged by the normal criteria of empirical science, Darwinism is false. Its persists in spite of the evidence, and the eagerness of Darwin and his followers to defend it with theological arguments about creation and design suggests that its persistence has nothing to do with science at all."

    ...Darwinists manipulate the evidence and mix it with theology to recycle a false theory that should have been discarded long ago."

    Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California at Berkeley




    I always love your so called "experts," Jockfever...A little research on any of your "experts" always reveals a sordid past.
    Your current expert you quoted, doesn't think that HIV causes AIDS either. He's obviously a very reputable and intelligent resource.
    Also, he's another member of the Discovery Network, which itself has quite the sordid past.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_%28intelligent_design_advocate%29#AIDS_denialism


    I highly suggest reading the rest of the article as well...I especially love this part:
    Wells is best known[39] for his 2002 book Icons of Evolution, in which he discusses ten examples which he says show that many of the most commonly accepted arguments supporting evolution are invalid. The book is rejected by the scientific community and has received much criticism.[40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] There have been 12 detailed reviews of Icons, from scholars familiar with the subject matter, which have come to the consensus that the book's claims are a politically-motivated extreme exaggeration and misrepresentation of a scattering of minor issues.[8] Scholars quoted in the work have accused Wells of purposely misquoting them and misleading readers.[48][49] Biology Professor Jerry Coyne wrote of Icons, "Jonathan Wells' book rests entirely on a flawed syllogism: ... textbooks illustrate evolution with examples; these examples are sometimes presented in incorrect or misleading ways; therefore evolution is a fiction."[6]

    You really should work on your sources...
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    Aug 25, 2011 1:37 PM GMT
    Misssionary work?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 8:38 PM GMT
    nanidesukedo: I always love your so called "experts," Jockfever...A little research on any of your "experts" always reveals a sordid past. Your current expert you quoted, doesn't think that HIV causes AIDS either. He's obviously a very reputable and intelligent resource.
    Also, he's another member of the Discovery Network, which itself has quite the sordid past...You really should work on your sources...


    jockfever: About twenty years ago Wells signed a petition encouraging more research on the issue of whether or not a retrovirus was actually causing AIDS. The petition noted that experts in the field were expressing doubts about the cause of AIDS. Encouraging scientific/medical research on an issue about which there is expert disagreement does not disqualify Wells as a reliable source, in my opinion.

    At one time doctors thought bloodletting was an effective treatment. It was an issue about which reasonable men could disagree. Hindsight is 20/20.

    Does skepticism about the theory of evolution make the Discovery Institute "sordid"? Factual errors? Unscientific assertions? Examples, please.

    Speaking of sources, Wikipedia often has hit pieces, holding themselves out as impartial biographies, on conservatives. That's one reason Conservapedia happened. The Wiki biography of Wells is obviously not impartial, and was written by a supporter of evolution. It cites evolutionist attacks on Wells' books and articles but doesn't mention the rebuttals to those attacks.

    Evolution is a very contentious topic. Which side shows more objectivity? I find more objectivity shown by those who question the theory of evolution, on scientific grounds.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 8:45 PM GMT
    Lincsbear: Misssionary work?

    jockfever: That would be cool. Time may be short. Sadly I'm obviously not qualified by background or temperament for that kind of work.

    Since you brought it up, the best missionary work is being done in China, India, Africa, and other places, and not by Catholics or Protestants. When we wake up tomorrow there will be over 100,000 more Christians -- Christians without buildings, vestments, or gold -- the way it was originally meant to be. One major reason for the growth in numbers: faith healings, just like in the early days of Christianity. PTL.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 8:57 PM GMT
    jockfever saidLincsbear: Misssionary work?

    jockfever: That would be cool. Time may be short. Obviously not qualified by background or temperament for that kind of work.

    Since you brought it up, the best missionary work is being done in China, India, Africa, and other places, and not by Catholics or Protestants. When we wake up tomorrow there will be over 100,000 more Christians -- Christians without buildings, vestments, or gold -- the way it was originally meant to be. One major reason for the growth in numbers: faith healings, just like in the early days of Christianity. PTL.

    So are you proselytizing here? Are you trying to win converts to the Christian fundamentalist cause? Do you want us to prepare for the End Times?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2011 12:35 PM GMT
    Art_Deco: So are you proselytizing here? Are you trying to win converts to the Christian fundamentalist cause? Do you want us to prepare for the End Times?

    jockfever: According to most Biblical prophecy experts, the End Times officially started when Israel was reborn as a nation.

    Do you ask Libs who attack Judeo-Christianity, Constitutional government, and capitalism whether they're proselytizing?

    It's a testament to the God-forsaken nature of RJ that attacks on Christianity, God, the Bible, Israel, etc. are frequent. I wish others better qualified and with more time, would respond.

    Christians have an obligation to lovingly proclaim the Good News. You can forget the "lovingly" in my case, since I'm only a bad Christian.






  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2011 12:54 PM GMT
    paradox saidJust because a person is gay doesn't mean he can't also be spiritually immature and intellectually unsophisticated.


    Don't agree with fundamentalism, but I think it serves a purpose for those who are incapable of seeing the world with spiritual eyes. They only see the physical, black and white. Hopefully as they mature spiritually, they will be able to discern the true from the false. Just my opinion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2011 5:35 PM GMT
    yourname2000: He's fake. He's just here for shitz and giggles....a different kind of troll. He'll keep doing what he's doing as long as people keep giving him airtime....and he knows there's always fresh losers to take the bait.

    jockfever: As opposed to you, always making informative, lasting contributions to our understanding of great issues, such as life, the universe, God, where we came from, and where we are going.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2011 5:48 PM GMT
    vincent7: Don't agree with fundamentalism, but I think it serves a purpose for those who are incapable of seeing the world with spiritual eyes. They only see the physical, black and white. Hopefully as they mature spiritually, they will be able to discern the true from the false. Just my opinion.

    jockfever: Atheists, Evolutionists, and Statists see the world in simplistic physical, materialistic, naturalistic terms.

    Spiritual individuals believe that the most important truths transcend nature. Spiritual individuals believe in the supernatural. Spiritual individuals believe that life has meaning and a purpose.

    Atheists commit suicide in disproportionate numbers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2011 5:59 PM GMT
    yourname2000 saidHe's fake. He's just here for shitz and giggles....a different kind of troll.

    He'll keep doing what he's doing as long as people keep giving him airtime....and he knows there's always fresh losers to take the bait.


    In his other thread, once we backed him into a corner regarding the fake science he was promoting, he bailed. This is just the latest thread.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2011 6:58 PM GMT
    torrentprime: In his other thread, once we backed him into a corner regarding the fake science he was promoting, he bailed. This is just the latest thread.

    jockfever: Evolutionists and their phony religion are the main purveyors of fake science.

    I'm not obligated to respond to every RJ knucklehead who rejects the Bible and embraces crap-ola like "Nothing created Everything" and "From Goo to You via the Zoo." Sound familiar?

    As I responded previously, you thought you found pay dirt in the article claiming that evolution was observed in the laboratory. Evolution is so lacking in scientific evidence that a nit like that experiment was hyped as major news. It's nothing more than another in a long history of evolutionist lies and hoaxes.

    Backed into a corner? You flatter yourself and your phony religion.

    If you had checked "Scienceagainstevolution.org" you would have seen the worthless nature of the article you posted. Libs, however, are too smart to consult technical websites which undermine Lib superstitions.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 15, 2011 12:41 AM GMT
    paradox saidJust because a person is gay doesn't mean he can't also be spiritually immature and intellectually unsophisticated.
    Bingo!
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Sep 15, 2011 1:43 AM GMT
    jockfever saidtorrentprime: In his other thread, once we backed him into a corner regarding the fake science he was promoting, he bailed. This is just the latest thread.

    jockfever: Evolutionists and their phony religion are the main purveyors of fake science.

    I'm not obligated to respond to every RJ knucklehead who rejects the Bible and embraces crap-ola like "Nothing created Everything" and "From Goo to You via the Zoo." Sound familiar?

    As I responded previously, you thought you found pay dirt in the article claiming that evolution was observed in the laboratory. Evolution is so lacking in scientific evidence that a nit like that experiment was hyped as major news. It's nothing more than another in a long history of evolutionist lies and hoaxes.

    Backed into a corner? You flatter yourself and your phony religion.

    If you had checked "Scienceagainstevolution.org" you would have seen the worthless nature of the article you posted. Libs, however, are too smart to consult technical websites which undermine Lib superstitions.



    Such a technical website. All the primo researchers flock to obviously unbiased websites like Scienceagainstevolution.org The name itself doesn't imply a biased agenda at all icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2011 9:09 PM GMT
    javalava:What's a fundamentalist troll (jockfever) doing on a gay site like RJ, preaching pseudoscience? He must be gay. A gay fundamentalist? I never heard of that oxymoron before.

    jockfever: RJ is littered with personal attacks directed by the Left against center-right members.

    RJ and its members hold themselves out as sports-oriented. Sports without rules are chaotic nonsense.

    This topic doesn't bother me but it is another example of the Left being too mentally disordered to play by the rules.

    Topics that are started with the intent to denigrate, belittle, or disparage another RealJock.com member, either directly named or through enough descriptive commentary to be possibly identified, are prohibited. Such topics will be deleted and may result in the banning of the original poster. This includes following another poster around in the forums, posting about past events gone sour, divulging personal information, spreading gossip or rumors, posting email exchanges between users, etc. Keep the drama off the forums.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2011 9:19 PM GMT
    jockfever saidjavalava:What's a fundamentalist troll (jockfever) doing on a gay site like RJ, preaching pseudoscience? He must be gay. A gay fundamentalist? I never heard of that oxymoron before.

    jockfever: RJ is littered with personal attacks directed by the Left against center-right members.

    RJ and its members hold themselves out as sports-oriented. Sports without rules are chaotic nonsense.

    This topic doesn't bother me but it is another example of the Left being too mentally disordered to play by the rules.

    Topics that are started with the intent to denigrate, belittle, or disparage another RealJock.com member, either directly named or through enough descriptive commentary to be possibly identified, are prohibited. Such topics will be deleted and may result in the banning of the original poster. This includes following another poster around in the forums, posting about past events gone sour, divulging personal information, spreading gossip or rumors, posting email exchanges between users, etc. Keep the drama off the forums.


    Not to interrupt the non-stop rightwing pity party (not to mention your hypocrisy in whining about denigration or belittlement from RJ members while calling those same members mentally disordered), but the point is that Christian fundamentalism includes a belief (obsession) that homosexuality is a sin. Hence, it is surprising to see someone attempt to reconcile their homosexuality with the rest of fundamentalism.

    And I am not denigrating you - the pseudoscience you peddle is laughable and disprovable, and we've been engaging in discussion about such for awhile now. I am sure you're a very nice man, and I don't believe I've ever said otherwise, but we all have the right to point out the holes in your Christianist fake science.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2011 9:47 PM GMT
    nanidesukedo Such a technical website. All the primo researchers flock to obviously unbiased websites like Scienceagainstevolution.org The name itself doesn't imply a biased agenda at all

    jockfever: Many evolutionists seem to think that arguments against evolution cannot be scientific, and that those who make such arguments cannot be real scientists.

    This fervor is almost religious in nature, probably because evolution is a religion.

    Scienceagainstevolution.org admits that it is biased toward the view that evolution is not based on science.

    The idea that only pro-evolution web sites can be objective about the theory of evolution is absurd.

    The arguments at scienceagainstevolution are predominately based on technical facts and evidence.

    Instead of a vague, generic dismissals of the site, why don't evolutionists provide several examples of technical errors at the site?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2011 10:33 PM GMT
    torrentprime: Not to interrupt the non-stop rightwing pity party (not to mention your hypocrisy in whining about denigration or belittlement from RJ members while calling those same members mentally disordered), but the point is that Christian fundamentalism includes a belief (obsession) that homosexuality is a sin. Hence, it is surprising to see someone attempt to reconcile their homosexuality with the rest of fundamentalism.

    And I am not denigrating you - the pseudoscience you peddle is laughable and disprovable, and we've been engaging in discussion about such for awhile now. I am sure you're a very nice man, and I don't believe I've ever said otherwise, but we all have the right to point out the holes in your Christianist fake science.


    jockfever: The claim that both sides are guilty of personal attacks on RJ is too convenient and too inaccurate. The overwhelming majority of personal attacks on RJ are by the Left, and are directed against center-right members.

    Recently the site's owner reportedly deleted the profile of an outspoken center-right guy, and several others left in sympathy.

    The owner can do whatever he likes. In my opinion this sort of thing will ultimately turn the forums into left-wing echo chambers and will cause an exodus of center-right guys.

    I don't know of any lefties whose profiles have been deleted. Do you?

    Let's save the topic of homosexuality and Christianity for another venue.

    When it comes to pseudo-science, evolution has few equals. "Yet, in spite of no evidence to support it, and increasing amounts of evidence to the contrary, evolution is still being taught as fact."

    Christians built the foundations of modern science, they built the greatest civilization known to man, and they built the greatest country known to man. Evolution inspires little more than genocide, slavery, racism, and suicide.




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 26, 2011 5:35 AM GMT
    jockfever said
    jockfever: The claim that both sides are guilty of personal attacks on RJ is too convenient and too inaccurate. The overwhelming majority of personal attacks on RJ are by the Left, and are directed against center-right members.



    So, it's ok when you do it because... you're outnumbered? Man, I really don't get Christian ethics.

    jockfever:
    Recently the site's owner reportedly deleted the profile of an outspoken center-right guy, and several others left in sympathy.
    I don't know of any lefties whose profiles have been deleted. Do you?


    Why was the member's profile was deleted? You said he was conservative, and outspoken, and that his profile was deleted. You never said why, although you quite clearly (not to mention clumsily) want us to believe it was because he was conservative. Isn't this the kind of card playing good conservatives claim they hate?

    jockfever
    When it comes to pseudo-science, evolution has few equals. "Yet, in spite of no evidence to support it, and increasing amounts of evidence to the contrary, evolution is still being taught as fact."

    Evolution inspires little more than genocide, slavery, racism, and suicide.


    More lies and unsourced quotes. There is extensive evidence to support evolution, as I've directed you to before. Refusing to read or believe it doesn't make the evidence go away.

    And are you really so unaware of history as to not be aware of the genocides, slavery, racism, and suicides caused by, defended with, and justified by Christianity? Even if you were raised in a Christianist bubble that hid all that history from you, I certainly don't think that those well-researched historical analyses in any way taint Christianity as a whole or for anyone who follows it today - why can't you extend the same courtesy towards science? People who commit atrocities use many things to explain their actions; only a fool would think those crimes actually attach to the stated reasons as to why they were committed. Or do you believe the entire Muslim religion is tainted by 9/11? If so, why isn't all of Christianity tainted by the Crusades?

    Last: You do realize that the bullshit "evolution causes genocide" argument is precisely the same crap the religious right is pushing about the gays and Nazis, right? Ever heard of The Pink Swastika?