Religion.

[Lawrence of Knockbride]

Olly, you're my God anyway.

[Tyrones own]

No, to you you are God. If he's only imaginary then he can't think anything. But I'm with you except you might need to provided some evidence of your theory like evolutionists have, and like religous people haven't, leaving aside herself appearing in the odd place. Such a tease.

Why don't you provide evidence? Evolution is only a theory.

What? You haven't heard about the evidence? There's a fair bit of it, to be honest, so it could take a while. You could start here:

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/

When you're done. Let us know the bits of it you dispute. (Supported, of course, by your contrary evidence).

I'll Argue on account that Darwin admitted In His Later Life That He Didn't Actually Believe In Some
of His Own Writings

[The Real Laoislad]

Hell would be too good for some of you lot anyways

[J70]

No, to you you are God. If he's only imaginary then he can't think anything. But I'm with you except you might need to provided some evidence of your theory like evolutionists have, and like religous people haven't, leaving aside herself appearing in the odd place. Such a tease.

Why don't you provide evidence? Evolution is only a theory.

What? You haven't heard about the evidence? There's a fair bit of it, to be honest, so it could take a while. You could start here:

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/

When you're done. Let us know the bits of it you dispute. (Supported, of course, by your contrary evidence).

I'll Argue on account that Darwin admitted In His Later Life That He Didn't Actually Believe In Some
of His Own Writings

Any chance of some details? Did he revise details of his theories as time went by and as always happens when new data shows up? (Hopefully its not the deathbed recantation tale! :p)

But assuming, for the sake of argument, that Darwin did repudiate some or all of his writings, so what? Evolutionary theory doesn't just rest on Darwin. If the alleged change of mind you speak about occurred, it would be evaluated on its scientific merit, not on the person himself. Darwin could have lost his mind and denounced natural selection or the entire idea of evolution and it would not matter one bit. Its the data that counts. Evolution and natural selection explains the data. That's why its still around as the unifying theory of life, 150 years of intensive testing and examination later! Don't forget that it took 80 years for natural selection to be finally accepted as the basic driving force of evolution!

[Hardy]

No, to you you are God. If he's only imaginary then he can't think anything. But I'm with you except you might need to provided some evidence of your theory like evolutionists have, and like religous people haven't, leaving aside herself appearing in the odd place. Such a tease.

Why don't you provide evidence? Evolution is only a theory.

What? You haven't heard about the evidence? There's a fair bit of it, to be honest, so it could take a while. You could start here:

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/

When you're done. Let us know the bits of it you dispute. (Supported, of course, by your contrary evidence).

I'll Argue on account that Darwin admitted In His Later Life That He Didn't Actually Believe In Some
of His Own Writings

(Hopefully its not the deathbed recantation tale! :p)

I'm afraid it is, J70. I have this clown on my personal ignore list.

[deiseach]

I'm afraid it is, J70. I have this clown on my personal ignore list.

What is the upshot of your personal ignore list? Because it doesn't seem to involve ignoring them

[Tyrones own]

I'm afraid it is, J70. I have this clown on my personal ignore list.

What is the upshot of your personal ignore list? Because it doesn't seem to involve ignoring them

Good question  ah sure even a simpleton like Hardly must understand how pathetic and childish he looks when he feels the need to schhh. a poster on an
internet discussion board, simply because he has no answer to me 
...even with all his back up !
First its label me then its the insults and when that inevitably fails,
its the boycott

[Hardy]

I'm afraid it is, J70. I have this clown on my personal ignore list.

What is the upshot of your personal ignore list? Because it doesn't seem to involve ignoring them

Er, it does, in as far as I can be consistent about it and in as far as a list can have an upshot. I'm sure you can't be fascinated enough about how I conduct my discussion board activities to want the long version, but since you did ask, I'll give you a brief outline.

When I see his name on a post, I'll usually skip it, because, as I said before, I found out long ago that reading it will be about as informative as listening to the magpie in the garden. If it's only a sentence long, as you'll appreciate, it's actually hard to avoid letting its content into your brain as you scan past it, but leave that aside. The only relevant aspect of the "ignore" policy is the "no response" policy. Replying only encourages magpie shrieking and achieves nothing in the way of information exchange.

I was replying to J70.

[deiseach]

Er, it does, in as far as I can be consistent about it and in as far as a list can have an upshot. I'm sure you can't be fascinated enough about how I conduct my discussion board activities to want the long version, but since you did ask, I'll give you a brief outline.

When I see his name on a post, I'll usually skip it, because, as I said before, I found out long ago that reading it will be about as informative as listening to the magpie in the garden. If it's only a sentence long, as you'll appreciate, it's actually hard to avoid letting its content into your brain as you scan past it, but leave that aside. The only relevant aspect of the "ignore" policy is the "no response" policy. Replying only encourages magpie shrieking and achieves nothing in the way of information exchange.

I was replying to J70.

Ach, no need - bit late now, sez you, but anyway. I was yanking your chains about the time you responded to Fearon, someone who (I presume) is on your ignore list. Carry on.

[ONeill]

Ignoramuses.

[Hardy]

Er, it does, in as far as I can be consistent about it and in as far as a list can have an upshot. I'm sure you can't be fascinated enough about how I conduct my discussion board activities to want the long version, but since you did ask, I'll give you a brief outline.

When I see his name on a post, I'll usually skip it, because, as I said before, I found out long ago that reading it will be about as informative as listening to the magpie in the garden. If it's only a sentence long, as you'll appreciate, it's actually hard to avoid letting its content into your brain as you scan past it, but leave that aside. The only relevant aspect of the "ignore" policy is the "no response" policy. Replying only encourages magpie shrieking and achieves nothing in the way of information exchange.

I was replying to J70.

Ach, no need - bit late now, sez you, but anyway. I was yanking your chains about the time you responded to Fearon, someone who (I presume) is on your ignore list. Carry on.

Ah. I consider my chains well and truly yanked.

[muppet]

Er, it does, in as far as I can be consistent about it and in as far as a list can have an upshot. I'm sure you can't be fascinated enough about how I conduct my discussion board activities to want the long version, but since you did ask, I'll give you a brief outline.

When I see his name on a post, I'll usually skip it, because, as I said before, I found out long ago that reading it will be about as informative as listening to the magpie in the garden. If it's only a sentence long, as you'll appreciate, it's actually hard to avoid letting its content into your brain as you scan past it, but leave that aside. The only relevant aspect of the "ignore" policy is the "no response" policy. Replying only encourages magpie shrieking and achieves nothing in the way of information exchange.

I was replying to J70.

Ach, no need - bit late now, sez you, but anyway. I was yanking your chains about the time you responded to Fearon, someone who (I presume) is on your ignore list. Carry on.

Ah. I consider my chains well and truly yanked.

Off to confessions you go.

[Tyrones own]

Er, it does, in as far as I can be consistent about it and in as far as a list can have an upshot. I'm sure you can't be fascinated enough about how I conduct my discussion board activities to want the long version, but since you did ask, I'll give you a brief outline.

When I see his name on a post, I'll usually skip it, because, as I said before, I found out long ago that reading it will be about as informative as listening to the magpie in the garden. If it's only a sentence long, as you'll appreciate, it's actually hard to avoid letting its content into your brain as you scan past it, but leave that aside. The only relevant aspect of the "ignore" policy is the "no response" policy. Replying only encourages magpie shrieking and achieves nothing in the way of information exchange.

I was replying to J70.

Ach, no need - bit late now, sez you, but anyway. I was yanking your chains about the time you responded to Fearon, someone who (I presume) is on your ignore list. Carry on.

Ah. I consider my chains well and truly yanked.

Ignore me hole..ye boy's hang on my every word here
And by the by, why the need to be constantly telling others that you're ignoring me
why not just simply...i don't know, ignore me
It's clearly a little playground strategy of putting pressure on others not to be seen to side with me
in even the slightest manner... evidenced on numerous occasions by the Can't believe you're siding with TO line.
  Pathetic is an understatement here, after all...this is an anonymous discussion board!!!

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

Anyone else watching this show about complete moron Christians on t.v. now. What complete thicks.

[Gaoth Dobhair Abu]

No why are you?