The Pathological Liar: Laurie Appleton

From: Jitender Saan
To: Laurie Appleton

LA>The sooner they get back to sanity and out of the blind
LA>alley into which they have turned, the sooner that
LA>science can begin again to make real progress in the
LA>historical and biological sciences.

Do you know what is the difference between a million year old dinosaur fossil and a fossilized cat that died 7000 years ago?

If everything was created in the last 10,000 years why does does dating reveal it to be several millions of years ago?

Do you deny the fact that the temperature of earth is falling and that at one time it was too hot support our kind of life?

Do you deny that the sun will in time turn red and as a result of that our planet will be longer able to support life?

Do you deny that the very teachings you hold high today are the ones that said

- the earth is flat

- the earth is the center of the universe and EVERYTHING revolves around the earth

- that stars are actually heaven

- that comets are evil messengers

Where are these beliefs today? Did god release an update patch for the universe?

Since you are always so keen to go around (mis)quoting anything and everything I had suggest that for a change you get a geography text book used in the 1st or 2nd grade and read it.

Despite all your rhetoric you will find that almost everything that is mentioned in the scriptures or was considered an act of god or satan has been blown apart into insignificance by science.

- the earth is not flat

- the earth is not the center of the universe

- stars are all gas and dust

- comets are just another phenomenon

- the world is not balanced on the back of a turtle

If people like you could have had your way we would never have made such progress in so many diverse fields.

Idiots like you would have still believed that the plague was a punishment from god instead of taking it as a disease, doing research on it, understanding it and defeating it, thus saving many lives, which would have been so much better instead of praying for the souls of the dead.

Idiots like you would be sitting around waiting for the lord jesus to appear and heal the lepers with a single touch instead of spending some of your own brains in trying to cure the disgusting scourge.

Idiots like you would have believed that if a person was born deaf god must have MEANT him to be deaf. Nothing would have inspired you to invent a hearing aid device.

Idiots like you would have believed that it is god's will that man must not fly. Nothing would have made you invent planes.

Idiots like you would never have believed that god would allow any of his creations to become extinct. Dinosaurs would have been a monstrosity to you instead of fossils that proved that life existed for a much longer time than what your lying god would have you believe.

Idiots like you would never have had the brains to question the fact whether Noah took a pair of each dinosaur species aboard (yeah, I can see them, two tyrannosaurus exchanging gossip with some stegosaurus'. Just how big was this ark Laurie? I am sure you MUST have some printed statistics of this biblical truth. Or is it that the only books you quote from are the ones that offer truth in a way that can be twisted. Straight truths seem alien to you)

Idiots like you would still duck under the table whenever there was a lightning flash. It would never have occurred to you that it was electricity and how it would help humanity in the long run. Or how it reacted with nitrogen in the air thus providing valuable material so important for plant life.

Idiots like you would still believe that god gathered the waters of the ocean when they fell of the flat edges of the earth and made them pour down again as rain. Evaporation and cloud formation would have beyond your comprehension.

Idiots like you would still believe that Count Dracula does exist and there are some of the Undead amongst us. Bats as nothing more than any other species of life form would seem unlikely creations of god to you. Don't ticks suck blood? Don't mosquitoes suck blood? What has christ got against bats? That they are much bigger than the rest of the blood suckers? (though it doesn't seem to disturb him that his followers are THE BIGGEST AND WORST bloodsuckers that are ever going to be). Come on Laurie, you are the official spokesperson of god, let us know what god has to say about this.

Idiots like you would never have looked at the stars and figured out that the light reaching your eyes is coming after completing a journey measurable in light years. Heck you wouldn't even know what a light year could be. Oh, and here is another experiment for you. Since you believe that the world just came to be Laurie, try to figure how many earth years it would take for the light from a star 50 light years away to reach here. Match that against what you believe to be the age of the earth. So? Did god make the earth some few million years AFTER making the rest of the universe? Eh Laurie? Perhaps now you will deny that any such thing as light exists, or that it has velocity, or that it can travel? Perhaps light is just a divine glow eh? The moon is just another light bulb, all that crap about the light of the moon taking 8 hours to reach the earth is crap. Right Laurie?

Continuing on the topic of the moon, idiots like you would never have figured out that any such thing as gravity. You would have been too scared shit of hell to consider anything on the lines of, 'the earth sucks'.

And since you wouldn't know that, idiots like you would never have accepted the fact that the tides were a direct result of the movements of the moon. Begorrah! Imagine the nerve of that dirt ball. Going around stirring the waters on the land of god.

If idiots like you were running this world there would be NOTHING that humanity could claim as an outstanding achievement. The earth would have had only one age - the dark age.

Want some hundreds of more examples of how science, despite negating god, continues to server humanity with more honesty and purpose than your god could ever be expected to?

Hope you trip on a shoe lace (YOU would never have had the intelligence to invent velcro) and break your ruddy neck.

LA>1. Sudden appearance of each life form.

Give examples.

LA>2. Stasis or no significan change of each form.

Give examples. Oh and you might want to know that there has been very little change in the physical structure of a human being for quite some time. Science does not deny this fact. Perhaps you didn't know this?

LA>3. Intelligent Design as clearly shown in every living thing.

What do you call intelligent design? We are made in god's image, aren't we? Or do you deny that too? How many times has god had a stomach ache, or cancer, or aids, or cataract, or polio, or leprosy, or impotence, or motor neutron disease, or amnesia, or blindness, or fever, or any of a hundreds of things that go wrong in our body? What is the fucking use of being made in god's image?

If you think this is intelligent design Laurie then your god must make one hell of a patient for every heathen medical practitioner that ever went to the devil.

Care to explain what you mean by intelligent design? Billions of flies eating shit and spreading infection, is that intelligent design? Scores of mosquitoes sucking blood and spreading malaria, is that intelligent design?

Your intelligently designed dentures would have no dentist to perform root canal operations or help you when your teeth started to rot and fall away. SCIENCE has given you that help, but since you can't appreciate such a simple thing it is useless to remind you of it. When your intelligently designed head has bouts of intolerable migraine attacks it is science that provides it with a transcutaneous nerve stimulator that sends electrical impulses to immediately provide you relief from the pain, you can't say the same about prayers.

Without science your intelligently designed person would be beset with some ailment or the other for as long as you lived. Hygiene and food quality controls have been provided and preached by science without which your intelligently designed body would have never eaten a morsel or drowned a gulp of water without swallowing millions of germs.

But then I remember reading that you (or someone LIKE you) saying that germs don't do any harm. I presume you are not immune to common cold Laurie, could you tell me how does YOUR science explain why and how someone sneezes? Can you do that Laurie?

LA>4. Castrophism. i.e. that the Earth has NOT had a uniform
LA>largely stable geological history at all, as
LA>evolutionists have taught for over 100 years.

Who has denied it Laurie? Earth was nothing more than a ball of fire when it started. Then it was full of volcanoes, ash, rock and mud flowing everywhere. The atmosphere was full of poisonous fumes. The land was one large continent. The continent split, drifting apart depending on its size, earth's gravity and other natural factors. There were earthquakes, geysers, landslides. It was a place of guaranteed death to life as we know it now. It has taken a long time for this scenario to change - with agonizing slowness - to reach where it is now.

You are again twisting facts to suit your purpose. The earth's geological history is RELATIVELY stable as compared to its very early geological history.

Even today it is not entirely stable. Small islands are formed, some islands disappear, both could be because of volcanoes or earthquakes.

And since you deliberately want to ignore things I will make it difficult by TELLING you that the earth is not a stagnant piece of rock. Everything on it is changing, not just living things but the rest of them also. Weather patterns, land masses, water levels, desert areas, rock formations, mountains, rivers, lakes, oceans ... you know that but don't want to admit it because things are working even though there is very little evidence of an all controlling god.

There is no such thing as a stable geology or geography. Remember that.

LA>These two positions were the subject of a decade of
LA>hundreds of open, public scientific debates in the 1970s.
LA>Various evolutionary writings have admitted that the
LA>Creation scientists almost always won these debates!

So? My father was the sort of person who NEVER took anybody's advise or suggestion. He was an arrogant drunkard who ruined not only his family but even his three brothers. Argument against him was futile because his head was as thick as yours. He won ALL arguments, not because he was right - he was almost always wrong - but because it was very clear that arguing with him was similar to smashing your head into a wall. People who had the sense to figure that out let him have his way and saved themselves the discomfort and waste of time.

Winning a debate proves nothing. A debate by nature is not an attempt to settle on the truth. It is just a politically correct way of making 'violently argue' sound like something nice and civilized.

Do you always rely on the outcomes of debates on coming to your decisions? Paleontologists have been 'debating' since a long time whether dinosaurs where big and stupid or they were fast and intelligent. Someone will eventually win the debate. What does that prove?

Laurie, get a life. Leave your room with those awful books who are your only bigoted companions. Go for a walk in the park. Fall in love or something. And most importantly try to remember that you not given a brain that would help you choose quotes from what others have said but because it would enable you to think ON YOUR OWN.

You just quote, quote, quote. Say something YOU have thought about. We are not interested in quotes. The same market that you frequent is open to us and we can buy and read books for ourselves. We are not here to 'quote' (except each other) but to ask and tell each other what we ourselves have understood by our own capabilities and limitations.

Honestly Laurie, don't you even FEEL that you ought to use your head for something else besides praying and keeping your eyes shut? Have you no curiosity, no imagination?

I pity you, something I hate to do, but I can't help it. Sorry.

LA>So here is a bit of revision for you. See if you
LA>remember the following from one of Britian' top
LA>"One of the reasons I started taking this
LA>anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a
LA>Does that 'ring any bells' eh Danny boy? It the enormity
LA>of it now starting to sink into that indoctrinated mind of
LA>yours, which you might have wrongly assumed was educated!

You sound like one of those anti-euthanasia guys, ever dealt with them when you wanted to die but they got in your way?

ALL (no exceptions) of such bodies have a single explanation as to why they are against euthanasia. The reason: "If someone chooses to die because he/she finds life unacceptable in its present state is denying himself/herself the chance that someday things might get better".

But when you WANT to die Laurie the folly in that excuse is this: You have absolutely NO guarantee that things will get better. You have no inclination to be a part of a hypocrite society (populated mostly by god fearing dodos like you). The above philosophy says, 'protect life'. But is that enough? To ensure that physically a person remains alive? What those anti-euthanasia bastards will avoid answering is what is the quality of life that they are trying to preserve. What if an individual is poor, has no family, is a total introvert and hence doesn't have too many friends, he has no place to stay as he has no money, he has been unemployed for a long time, etc. etc. When such a person wants to die the life champions will step in and make sure he doesn't succeed and when they have finished their job they will leave the individual alive but in the same mess that led him to long for death.

When someone undergoes a drastic change of opinion it need not necessarily be a right one. The person whom you chose to quote (can't help doing that even when it is out of context, can you?) underwent such a change. But never mind, we will leave it aside whether his change of opinion was for better or for worse. The point is it doesn't PROVE anything. There are hardened criminals who wake up one fine morning and find themselves asking, "Why am I doing this? From now on I won't". You call such people as 'he has returned to god'. There are other people who don't wake up one fine morning, more likely they never slept because of their trouble and no one realizes that they have pushed too far, go the opposite way and tell themselves, "No one gives a flying fuck about me or my life, why should I bother about theirs?". You call these people criminals who have sold their soul to the devil.

Get the point? I didn't think you would. You may have got the words in your quote alright but you did not grasp the REASON that prompted those words, instead you chose (as is usual with you) to provide your own reasons.

Belief and disbelief, beyond the person involved, is built or demolished by the surrounding circumstances. No one is born a murderer or a rapist, the society in which he lives makes sure of what he is going to become. When people suddenly start going to church and others start drinking and beating up their wives and kids they are no more responsible for their actions (some of them are of course but they are total whackos).

The person you have quoted is not alone. The person who wrote the hindu Ramayana was a dacoit all his life. Sikhism on the other hand branched out of hinduism simply because the hindus were to timid to put up a fight against the muslims. Sikhism is essential not a religion at all, it was started by 'soldiers' and 'warriors' who decided to fight for themselves since the society of which they were a part refused to do so. Naturally no sikh is going to agree to this and thanks to the efforts of the high priests all information proving this has been successfully removed from all public displays. The golden temple in amritsar (capital of the stat of punjab) had all these things on display when I used to visit it during my childhood, now it doesn't.

So you see you can have hundreds of people who 'woke up' and decided to go the 'right way' and you can quote them to your hearts content BUT don't forget that there an equal if not more number of people who were forced to do the exact opposite.

Like I said, getting on to the right path or wrong proves nothing. There is not even a practical way of deciding on right or wrong in this matter because you and your creed have words and words and words and words and words but no hard facts and the rest of us aren't going to agree you are right just because you SAY you are.

The behaviour of the person whom you quoted does nothing to prove that god exists or that he is right in agreeing with you that the world was created in seven days.

We have facts, carbon dating, experiments that can be observed and studied by both atheists and theists without discrimination. What do you have besides a fucking bible and a truck load of quacks and frauds who, by the way, when they are not winning inconsequential debates are fighting amongst themselves to decide whose interpretation of the fucking lord's word is correct. Doesn't speak too highly of them does it?

And I don't blame them. The intelligence of a leader is more or less a reflection of the intelligence of the people who have chosen him a leader. When people like you make such a choice, it is only natural that you are going to choose someone who is as bright as you are. Which is about as bright as a light bulb that has lost the advantage of vacuum.

No, it won't help you all have vacuum cleaners. You don't need them anyway, you suck naturally.

LA>creationism at all. I don't know if you are doing it intentionally but
LA>you are loading your questions to change my postings. Please keep on

Laurie can't. Laurie's sum total of ideas is smaller than the cube root of an iota. Laurie is a rail engine whose tracks have been laid by people who don't want Laurie to realize what is REALLY going on. So Laurie goes on tooting along the tracks, unable to look left or right but only straight where the track layers want their brain child Laurie to look.

Ever experienced a stuck gramophone record? That is Laurie. You can post on any topic but Laurie will make sure that the conversation comes around within the scope of the afore mentioned narrow tracks. With the help of some not-so-small amount of quotes from people who have nothing to do either with the topic or with Laurie's beliefs (with which they actually disagree but Laurie THINKS - ha! - they do).

I have not been here for even a month but I have already started skipping what Laurie has to say about anything. I don't mind reading lies provided the teller at least uses a little intelligence to make them sound a bit original or different. Laurie's lies come with a big tag on them that says, 'SAME LIES AS BEFORE'.

Laurie Appleton: You have not posted the Creationist Science Theory despite daily reminders since 1995

LA>No wonder evolutionists have admitted that the
LA>Creationists regularly did them like a dinner in a decade of
LA>debates! :-)

Nice to see you smile Laurie.

The only problem is that one of these days you are going to wake up. I suggest you smile as much as you can while you are floating in the limbo of you self created delusions.

Let me see what remarks of yours I remember ...

- walking with dead presidents

- snakes making apples fall, this is somehow related to gravity

- creationist science is right, it has religious roots, it can provide full evidence that the bible is right

- the bible is not scientific

- the sun stops now and then

- all non christians (even if it is not their fault) will be punished

- discriminating practices + hypocritical punishments = justice

- god = possibly an extra terrestrial

- heaven = possibly the extra terrestrial's home planet

- rocket full of packaged 'seeds of life' possible cause of creation of life on earth

- noah gathering two of each species in an ark, regardless of the fact that the ark would have to be VERY huge to manage living organisms from thousands of species, with provisions for food for all, sanitation to take care of their, ah, waste products, and hundreds of other factors, including glass bowls for gold fish, vast aquariums for whales (hey, they were MADE, they didn't evolve, so they existed during noah's exciting deeds, or perhaps the bible says that marine life survived?) The tigers and lions and jaguars never bothered to indulge with their usual form of diet which was sitting across the room. The snakes did not bite anyone. No cat went sniffing for mice. All species became VERY friendly with their enemies and diet supplies, as long as they were in the ark

- no verifiable evidence of such a gigantic ark

- dinosaurs and humans co-existed, but human science was so advanced that only those animals were drawn in caves, which the humans knew, would not survive in a jurassic environment

- no explanation for fossils of humans and dinosaurs not showing the effects of a common environment

- germs do not cause diseases

- evolution means going from simple to complex and 'adding' features

- not sure that the sun will turn red because no one has seen it happen. Total ignorance of the Chandrashekhar limit and how the sun functions. How several million similar stars function and how ALL have been observed to comply with the C. limit, but still not sure that the sun will turn red because no one has seen it do so.

- no explanation or evidence of how, when and why creationist science changed it's belief from the earth being flat and the center of the universe to the earth being spherical and not being the center of the universe

and on, and on, and on, and on ...

<yawn> Good night Laurie, hope you have several bitter nightmares ...

"Take me to your leader".

LA>From reading this long message of yours I am covinced
LA>that you would be worse than 'Dumb'! It would be difficult
LA>to imagine anyone any dumber! However I'll ignore this sick
LA>attempt of yours for now, since perhaps think is humour.

No Laurie, you misunderstand as usual. It was not humor, it was a fact. When someone has been - for over three years - been repeatedly PROVED a liar and a twister of others' words, has NEVER given a straight answer to the simplest of questions, has NEVER posted even ONE line from the scientific theory of creation despite daily reminders, and takes PRIDE in all of the above and some more degrading aspects of himself, then Laurie, there is no other adjective applicable to you except dumb. You might call it abuse but who cares? When you yourself are not bothered to maintain your dignity why the hell should I?

You ARE dumb, and as I said before as shameless and disgusting a liar and word juggler I have ever come across.

>>JS>Since you don't know Laurie, several species of
>>JS>dinosaurs actually WERE birds ... As home work, brush up on

LA>That is about as 'dumb' a statement as I have yet heard!
LA>Dinosaurs are a reptile and cannot be birds. Anything with
LA>wings and feathers is classified as a bird!

Oh? So ANYTHING with wings and feathers is classified as a bird!

Excellent. Now Laurie, pterodactyls had wings, and not just itsy-bitsy sparrow wings, but wings that had a span of over 14 feet.

You have been told several times by several people but I will remind once again that you simply must get hold of some information that was released after 1960 (I believe you are stuck in that year).

Dinosaurs WERE classified as reptiles but further investigation (of which you are unaware because of the time loop you are stuck in) has provided a new set of evidence that the skeleton and the resulting aspects of a dinosaur resemble a bird more than they do a reptile. Dinosaurs were also considered slow and dumb (er... I hope YOU aren't a dinosaur Laurie) but now there is a possibility that they might have been fast and intelligent. The whole concept of their being reptiles was because of a remark by the person who first discovered their fossils which doesn't mean anything. He might have called them anything and his right to do so - he being the one who made the discovery - might have misled you and your bible thumping moronic companions to consider them a species of whale or owls. He did not have a gigantic computer for him to do a skeletal animation on the fossils he found.

Get it duffer? He had the fossils and his perception, that is ALL. He had no means - apart from guessing and surmising - what would be the behaviour of the skeleton when it was part of a living organism. It wasn't his fault or the fault of his followers but the fact remains that they did not have the TOOLS required to make a judgement on the creature whose skeleton they had found. What they had was size, the bones were huge and the poor dinos got labelled as a fat cow or elephant, slow, sloppy, stupid (just like you).

Today you can feed a computer the strength of the bones, their length, their breadth, the joint mechanism and the rest including climatic parameters and figure out what kind of muscle power would be needed to make a creature that was able to SURVIVE in the jurassic environment.

You can then accumulate all species and simulate an eco-system to find out the interaction between the carnivores and the herbivores, the predators and the prey.

The conclusion is obvious to anyone who can see a water-melon and realize he is looking at a water-melon, which does not include you, because you would insist that the water-melon is a 'conspiracy' and that it is just a camouflaged cabbage.

Dinosaurs are much more like birds and much less than what they were supposed to be - reptiles.

Go find your own damn 'source' for that. At least that will be an excuse for you get out of the pen and perhaps - GASP - realize that 40 years have gone by since you locked yourself up with those dashed chickens and your 'books'. There is more to the world than counting eggs and reading outdated information and spreading a disease called 'religion'.

Oh, and before I forget, you might also note that all these tools are provided by the heathen science that you are so fond of bashing. And the same skeletal animation has also been used with human specimens. Someday now, a fully functional artificial limb might be possible. Another achievement for science, another embarrassment for you.

When was the last time creationist science did something as beneficial to humanity? Judging from your behaviour, all that the creationists want to do is sell their junked opinions to young students in school.

Keep trying, you aren't going to win.

LA>Arh, knock it off kiddo! It is obvious that you are the

It is really surprising that there can be members of the human species as dumb and ignorant as Laurie Appleton, someone must have goofed up the blue prints and substituted your brain with that of a blind beetle. It seems you are also unaware that intelligence has NOTHING to do with age. I know some two year olds who know when they have been apprehended doing something they weren't supposed to do. You seem incapable of even this small effort.

LA>twister. After all you seem to want to call birds dinosaurs

There you go again, goofy-ing as usual. Laurie, you have been reading YOUR own quotes instead of reading MY response.

I DON'T quote passages from books after 'modifying' them and then having ten people post the passages correctly proving me a liar.

I HAVEN'T been banned from fido echoes because of being an unstoppable fountain of lies.

I DON'T answer simple questions with evasive questions.

I DON'T make last ditch efforts to take a conversation off-topic to save myself the embarrassment of having fucked up time and over.

I am NOT the one who has been masquerading with a 'scientific theory of creation' without having written one word of what is contains despite being repeatedly asked for YEARS.

Thou art the one and only, Supreme Twister. I am a mere mortal, I make mistakes but I am not a twister.

Gadzooks man, fill up the cavity in your skull with something. Try manure at first, it might not be the best but it is certainly most suitable for the kind of environment in your head. Just make sure you don't fart too much, the ozone layer and all that, you know, don't you know?

LA>and to call dinosaurs birds? Obviously you surely DID stay

'Call'? Ah, one must appreciate your consistency in leading conversations out of topic when you are at the end of your wit (which of course is a VERY short trip).

Excuse ME Laurie but the conversation was about evolution and whether or not it was possible for dinosaurs to have evolved into birds. I never called dinosaurs birds and I never called birds dinosaurs. I had said that there were several dinosaur species that have more in common with birds than reptiles and since a few species of dinosaurs could already fly and several more had bird like skeletons, it would not be too fanciful to consider that some of such bird-like species DID evolve into birds.

Also your definition of a bird is wrong.

One more time, get some information released in THIS decade. You seem totally unaware of the fact that the speed at which technology is moving today is so rapid that information and methods of handling information can be invented that rendered obsolete within a few years. Even information you may get ("MAY") from 1991 or 1993 might no longer be antiquated.

LA>On the basis of your next 120 lines of confusion and
LA>twisting, there seems to be no point in making further
LA>comment! If you insist in leaving me messages then don't

Perhaps you don't HAVE a comment to make. Whatsamatta? Lost your dog-eared companions from the 60s?

LA>expect replies unless you can do better than that!

A nice way of saying, "I am stumped. PLEASE don't embarrass me further".

I am surprised that YOU are saying this, considering that 'shame' is something totally alien to you.

Never heard of another human who openly lied for 3 years (only in Fido, hell knows how many years you have been doing it in your real life) and has HIMSELF provided proof of his lies and yet had no notion about what an ass he was making of himself.

You WILL reply Laurie, your ego won't let you sleep if you don't.

Go Back to Shy David's New Pages Page.