Skip to main content

 

To commemorate the 100th anniversary of Charles Darwin's

The Origin of Species, the following extracts were reproduced

from Dr. Oswald J. Smith's book, The Challenge of Life.

 

 

IT may surprise students of evolution who do not know, to learn

that in the closing days of his life Darwin returned to his faith in

the Bible. Many a man, as he approaches the end, and consequently

comes more consciously into the presence of God and Eternity,

has regretted both his views and his conduct.

Such a one was Darwin.

 

The story is told by Lady Hope of Northfield, England, a wonderful

Christian woman who was often at his bedside before he died.

She herself writes it, and not only is it interesting, it is also most

enlightening. Here it is in her own words:

 

It was on one of those glorious autumn afternoons that we sometimes

enjoy in England, when I was asked to go in and sit with the well

known Professor, Charles Darwin. He was almost bedridden for some

time before he died. I used to feel when I saw him that his fine presence

would make a grand picture for our Royal Academy; but never did I think

so more than on this particular occasion ... His noble forehead and fine

features seemed to be lit with pleasure as I entered the room. He waved his

hand toward the window as he pointed out the scene beyond, while in the

other hand he held an open Bible, which he was always studying.

 

 

'What are you reading now?' I asked as I was seated by his bedside. 'Hebrews',

he answered -'still Hebrews. The Royal Book, I call it.'

 

I made some allusion to the strong opinion expressed by many persons on the

history of the Creation, its grandeur, and then their treatment of the earlier

Chapters of the Book of Genesis. He seemed greatly distressed, his fingers

twitched nervously, and a look of agony came over his face as he said, 'I was

a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions,

wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment, the ideas

took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.'

 

He suddenly said,'I have a summer house in the garden which holds about

thirty people ... Tomorrow afternoon I would like the servants on the place,

some tenants and a few of the neighbours, to gather there.

Will you speak to them?'

 

'What shall I speak about?', I asked. 'Christ Jesus!', he replied in a clear,

emphatic voice - adding in a lower tone, 'and His Salvation.

is not that the best theme?'

 

The wonderful look of brightness and animation on his face as he said this,

I shall never forget ... How I wish I could have made a picture of the fineold

man and his beautiful surroundings on that memorable day!

 

 

WAS THERE EVER A MORE DRAMATIC SCENE? DARWIN,

ENTHUSIAST FOR THE BIBLE!

 

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/darwin.html 





 





 

 

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Hi Vic,

 

While I know that Darwin and his theory of evolution are totally false -- it appears that this story of his deathbed conversion is also false.

 

Darwin’s Deathbed Conversion—a Legend?
Arguments Christians Shouldn’t Use
by Dr. Tommy Mitchell, AiG–U.S., March 31, 2009<>

 

Excerpt only:

 

Given the weight of evidence, it must be concluded that Lady Hope’s story is unsupportable, even if she did actually visit Darwin. He never became a Christian, and he never renounced evolution. As much as we would like to believe that he died with a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, it is much more likely that he didn’t. It is unfortunate that the story continues to be promoted by many sincere people who use this in an effort to discredit evolution when many other great arguments exist, including the greatest: the Bible.

 

Editors’ note: this article was originally published March 31, 2009, and has been republished under the Arguments Christians Should Not Use web series.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

___

Three things about the story in the link:

 

1) It is a thoroughly researched piece of work with very substantial documentation.

 

2) It shows beyond any doubt that Salman's claims of persecution are utterly BOGUS.

 

3) It also shows beyond doubt that no matter how shallow and phony a person might be, by playing the religion card he will be able to find at least some naive and gullible right wingers who will support him. To see what I mean, read the comments following the article. 

quote: Originally Posted by vega:

vic your reads much better. thanks 


Hi Vega,

 

Did you mean, "Vic, your story reads much better"?  I am not sure how to read your comment.

 

Are you saying that you believe that Darwin had a deathbed conversion?  That story has been refuted and proven wrong long ago -- by both secular and Christian sources. 

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
quote: Originally Posted by vega:

vic your reads much better. thanks 


Hi Vega,

 

Did you mean, "Vic, your story reads much better"?  I am not sure how to read your comment.

 

Are you saying that you believe that Darwin had a deathbed conversion?  That story has been refuted and proven wrong long ago -- by both secular and Christian sources. 

 

*********************************

 

That word "Vic" should tip you off he was talking to me, not you.

 

Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
quote: Originally Posted by vega:

vic your reads much better. thanks 


Hi Vega,

 

Did you mean, "Vic, your story reads much better"?  I am not sure how to read your comment.

 

Are you saying that you believe that Darwin had a deathbed conversion?  That story has been refuted and proven wrong long ago -- by both secular and Christian sources. 

 

*********************************

 

That word "Vic" should tip you off he was talking to me, not you.

 

Vic, yours reads much better.

 

It was not refuted. There are stories told to the contrari but they are just fodder. I warn against aligning with anyone claiming proof of Darwin's deathbed confession being fabricated.

 

   The silence of DF and ADOT on this issue is also telling. Even a caveman will agree it's true.

If even Bill Gray and his Christian sources understand that this is a tired old lie, unsupported by facts, then I have nothing to add. Those trotting this out are hanging themselves publicly. It's contemptible that people are so willing to lie or believe a lie about a dead person for ignorant purposes. It shows desperation.

Originally Posted by vega:
Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
quote: Originally Posted by vega:

vic your reads much better. thanks 


Hi Vega,

 

Did you mean, "Vic, your story reads much better"?  I am not sure how to read your comment.

 

Are you saying that you believe that Darwin had a deathbed conversion?  That story has been refuted and proven wrong long ago -- by both secular and Christian sources. 

 

*********************************

 

That word "Vic" should tip you off he was talking to me, not you.

 

Vic, yours reads much better.

 

It was not refuted. There are stories told to the contrari but they are just fodder. I warn against aligning with anyone claiming proof of Darwin's deathbed confession being fabricated.

 

   The silence of DF and ADOT on this issue is also telling. Even a caveman will agree it's true.

___

Give it up, for Pete's sake.  This Darwin/deathbed fable is bogus.  It has been thoroughly refuted.  Those who continue to promote it are in the same class as the "birther" nuts who still believe the President was born somewhere other than in the U.S.

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_cul4.htm/

http://www.answersingenesis.or...ed-conversion-legend

http://www.younginquirers.com/...ter/0503/darwin.html

Originally Posted by seeweed:

I admit I am not the go to person on the life and times of Charles Darwin, but I see nothing in the theory of evolution, or in Christianity that would make them mutually exclusive.

I am a Christian and believe in evolution, so I am one who would know.

_______________________________

 

quote:   Originally Posted by seeweed:

I admit I am not the go to person on the life and times of Charles Darwin, but I see nothing in the theory of evolution, or in Christianity that would make them mutually exclusive.  I am a Christian and believe in evolution, so I am one who would know.


Hi Seeweed,

 

I gather from your statement, and from O No's response to it -- that you, and O No, believe in God, but, you seem to believe that He is the "almost" Almighty God, not the omnipotent (all powerful) Almighty God.  For, if in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" -- He needed help, from the creation, to create the creation -- He is not all powerful, He needed help.

 

Sorry, my Friends, but Darwinian Evolution refutes God's Creation.  So, they are mutually exclusive.

 

Now, to Vic and Vega's belief that Darwin had a deathbed conversion -- let me quote from the Darwin biography, which I have in my personal library, titled "Charles Darwin, A New Life" (page 442) by John Bowlby and published by W.W. Norton & Company in 1990.

 

On 17 April Emma (his wife) notes in her diary:  "Good day, a little work, out in the garden twice."  The "little work" was recording the progress of an experiment on which Francis was engaged during the latter's temporary absence.  On the night of the 18th he had a severe heart attack.  Emma and Francis were there to support him, while Bessy and Henrietta, who had arrived, did the nursing.  The following day at 3:30 pm he died peacefully.

 

Now, if Charles Darwin had such a life changing experience such as receiving Jesus Christ before he died -- shouldn't we expect to see some mention of it recorded in his wife's diary -- since she does record even his "little work" in the garden in her diary?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Why oh WHY do you have to be so snarky, Bill??!!

 

"I gather from your statement, and from O No's response to it -- that you, and O No, believe in God, but, you seem to believe that He is the "almost" Almighty God, not the omnipotent (all powerful) Almighty God.  For, if in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" -- He needed help, from the creation, to create the creation -- He is not all powerful, He needed help."

 

In a post you made yesterday, you told Semi that you DO believe I am a Christian. Yet here you claim I don't believe God is omnipotent. How could someone be a true Christian if they didn't believe in the omnipotence of God?

 

There is nothing about evolution that implies that God "needed help". I have stated so may times on this forum over the years that I believe God created science along with everything else, and that He uses the scientific principles He created to achieve all of the things He does.

 

The Bible itself states that time is different for God than it is for us. YOU are the one who is limiting God by putting Him on the same time scale as humans.

 

And I can't believe I'm even responding to this - AGAIN.

 

Once again Bill, I have no problem with you disagreeing with any of us, but your snarky responses turn people off so much that even if you had someting really relevant to say, no one would want to read it.

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
 

 

Sorry, my Friends, but Darwinian Evolution refutes God's Creation.  So, they are mutually exclusiv

 

So you damm him to hell without a hearing because why? you're God? 

 

 

On 17 April Emma (his wife) notes in her diary:  "Good day, a little work, out in the garden twice."  The "little work" was recording the progress of an experiment on which Francis was engaged during the latter's temporary absence.  On the night of the 18th he had a severe heart attack.  Emma and Francis were there to support him, while Bessy and Henrietta, who had arrived, did the nursing.  The following day at 3:30 pm he died peacefully.

 

Now, if Charles Darwin had such a life changing experience such as receiving Jesus Christ before he died -- shouldn't we expect to see some mention of it recorded in his wife's diary -- since she does record even his "little work" in the garden in her diary?

*************************

No, not if it's none of your concern, not if it's a private matter between

Charles and Jesus, it's like in the Bible when Jesus has said to

someone " what concern is it to you"?

 

 

 

"Darwin's evolution" refutes the nut jobs who believe the universe was created in six days about 6k year ago.  We know better.  Only the wackadoodle ding bats like Bill, who on the one hand call Catholicism a cult, while on the other hand using St. Augustine's goofy 6k calculation, can hide from the obvious facts. 

Originally Posted by A. Robustus:

If even Bill Gray and his Christian sources understand that this is a tired old lie, unsupported by facts, then I have nothing to add. Those trotting this out are hanging themselves publicly. It's contemptible that people are so willing to lie or believe a lie about a dead person for ignorant purposes. It shows desperation.

Are you hell bent on dying an atheist?

 

I wish you the best, but I'm concerned for you.

Hi O No,

You tell me, "Why oh WHY do you have to be so snarky, Bill??!!"

Why is it being "snarky" if I disagree with you?  By the way, what does "snarky" mean?   I suppose I am not up on all the "youth languages" now.  The only people I have seen use this term is you and Chick -- so, you have lost me.

In my earlier post, I wrote:


"I gather from your statement, and from O No's response to it -- that you, and O No, believe in God, but, you seem to believe that He is the "almost" Almighty God, not the omnipotent (all powerful) Almighty God.  For, if in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" -- He needed help, from the creation, to create the creation -- He is not all powerful, He needed help."

 

And, you respond, "In a post you made yesterday, you told Semi that you DO believe I am a Christian.  Yet here you claim I don't believe God is omnipotent.  How could someone be a true Christian if they didn't believe in the omnipotence of God?"

I do believe you are a Christian believer.  I have no reason to doubt your sincerity.  And, I am not saying that you do not believe God to be omnipotent; only that you seem to want to put limits on his omnipotence.

You declare, "There is nothing about evolution that implies that God "needed help."  I have stated so may times on this forum over the years that I believe God created science along with everything else, and that He uses the scientific principles He created to achieve all of the things He does."

If Darwinian Evolution is true -- then, the book of Genesis is wrong.  Since God is the person who inspired Genesis to be written -- as He wanted it to be written -- that, in my mind, implies that God is wrong if Darwinian Evolution is right.

The Bible, God's Written Word, tells us:


Genesis 1:26-28, "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'   God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  God blessed them; and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'"

Genesis 2:7-8, "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.   The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed."

 

Darwinian Evolution tells us that billions of years ago, a single lifeless cell was floating in a primordial swamp.  For some reason Darwin never explained who or what created this swamp and the lifeless cell floating in it.  But, over billions of years, somehow this cell went from being lifeless to having life.  Once again, science has never explained how life came from non-life.

And, then over a few billion years -- this cell which somehow went from lifeless to life -- began to multiply and grow.  From a single lifeless cell -- it multiplied, developed eyes, ears, a heart, and all the internal organs to make it perform as a monkey or an ape or a lemur.  A few more billion years, and that simple cell had progressed from being the simple lifeless cell to becoming a monkey, ape, or lemur -- and then became a human with all the complex subsystems which make up a human body.

All of this happened by accident -- or by some complex chemical reaction.

Now which sounds more sensible -- that an omnipotent God who existed outside the universe He created -- also created man.  Or, Darwin's accident or chemical reaction created man?  If you choose Darwin, you negate the Bible.   If you choose God's Written Word, specifically Genesis, you negate Darwinian Evolution.  They are mutually exclusive.

Next, you tell me, "The Bible itself states that time is different for God than it is for us.  YOU are the one who is limiting God by putting Him on the same time scale as humans."

That is true.  God has always existed outside our universe.  Time is one of the four dimension which He created for our world.  He lives outside that time dimension.  But, what He has had written for us -- takes into account the time dimension which He created for us.

That is why, in Genesis 1, we read, "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" -- "And there was evening and there was morning, a second day' -- "There was evening and there was morning, a third day" -- "There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day" -- "There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day" -- "And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."

Genesis 2:1-2, "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.  By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done."

Finally, you tell me, "And I can't believe I'm even responding to this - AGAIN.  Once again Bill, I have no problem with you disagreeing with any of us, but your snarky responses turn people off so much that even if you had something really relevant to say, no one would want to read it."

Well, I suppose when you and Chick tell me what your "snarky" means -- we can talk about it.  Until then, why don't we limit our dialogues to discussing God's Written Word.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

CREATION-Timeline

Attachments

Images (1)
  • CREATION-Timeline
quote:   Originally Posted by vega:

i hate it when crust gets mad


Gee, Vega,

 

Why do you say Crusty gets mad?  He is very even tempered -- always nasty!   By the way, Crusty, the Bible dating which places the creation somewhere in the thousands of year (instead of the billions) is from Sir Robert Anderson in his book "The Coming Prince" -- not from Augustine.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Science and Weather

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Science and Weather
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

 

Why do you say Crusty gets mad?  He is very even tempered -- always nasty!   By the way, Crusty, the Bible dating which places the creation somewhere in the thousands of year (instead of the billions) is from Sir Robert Anderson in his book "The Coming Prince" -- not from Augustine.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

 

________________

Sorry, Bill, St. Augustine's same "calculation" predates Sir Robert Anderson and any other plagiarizers.   Just like all your writings, it is derivative.

 

 

bill blinders

Bill facing evolution.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • bill blinders
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi O No,


If Darwinian Evolution is true -- then, the book of Genesis is wrong.  Since God is the person who inspired Genesis to be written -- as He wanted it to be written -- that, in my mind, implies that God is wrong if Darwinian Evolution is right.

 

............blah, blah, blather and drivel, blah, blah, blah.............

__________

Obviously, what is in your mind is wrong, as usual.  And you are correct, your misinterpretation of Genesis is incorrect, which invalidates your whole idiotic, convoluted, and delusional belief system.  Once you accept this, then maybe you can really find God.

First, it does not matter if Darwin had a deathbed conversion.  His science was correct.

 

Second, the story as recounted by Lady Hope is hearsay, at best. 

 

Third, Lady Hope was an evangelist, so we can suspect her credibility and honesty with perfect justification.  There has never been such a bunch of liars as evangelical Christians.  Kent Hovind could spew more lies/minute than anyone I've ever heard.  His arguments are absurd and destructive, but it takes four times as long to correct a lie as to tell one.  I suspect the myth about Darwin's deathbed conversion is just such a lie.

 

DF

 

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/ladyhope.html

Let's start with definitions, shall we?

 

snark·y
(snärk)

adj. snark·i·er, snark·i·est Slang
1. Rudely sarcastic or disrespectful; snide.
 
 Bill, even the fact that you  insist you don't know the meaning of this word is rather snarky. But here it is, so please don't pretend you don't know the meaning of the word in the future.

Now let's look at the word omnipotent.

 

Omnipotent, like the word "unique", is not a word whose meaning has degrees. Just as there is no such thing as VERY unique, because unique means "one of a kind", (how can something be VERY one of a kind?), omnipotent means "all powerful". Nothing can be "all powerful to a certain degree", it is either ALL powerful or NOT ALL powerful.

 

But you knew that Bill. So your contention that I believe God is all powerful UP TO A POINT, is hogwash and you know it.

Now, you have said many many times that when one is reading the Bible, one must decide if a verse is literal or allegorical. For some reason, you take Genisis as purely literal.

 

But given the science (which remember, I believe comes from God), and all of the scientific (from God, mind you) proof that the universe is FAR older than 6,000 years, I conclude that the story of Genisis IS allegorical.

 

Now, you don't have to agree with me and I'm certain you don't and never will, but there is no need to be SNARKY about it.

 

I have tried SO HARD over the years to get along with you. As I have said to you SO MANY times, and as I PMed you way back when I first joined this forum, if you would preface what you say with, "In my opinion...", or "The way I see it..." when you disagree with someone, people would not take such offense. You replied in that PM that you will not do that because you are talking about the word of God, which is NOT an opinion.

 

Yet you continue to claim it is OK for Christians to disagree on doctrinal issues. So if they disagree yet are still Christians, it seems that you are saying that your OPINION on these issues is the only RIGHT opinion because it comes from God. So on one hand, you claim if someone disagrees with you, it is OK, yet on the other hand you claim that your opinion is NOT opinion, it is the God's honest truth.

 

Pick one, Bill. It can't be both ways. Either you are 100% correct, 100% of the time, or you are just paying lipservice to the idea that Christians can disagree with you.

Originally Posted by A. Robustus:

If even Bill Gray and his Christian sources understand that this is a tired old lie, unsupported by facts, then I have nothing to add. Those trotting this out are hanging themselves publicly. It's contemptible that people are so willing to lie or believe a lie about a dead person for ignorant purposes. It shows desperation.

A.

 

What gets me is that the moderate Christians allow their religion to be dragged through the sewage of Creationism and the lies that attend it.  Lies such as this Darwin deathbed nonsense.

 

I understand solidarity within any cause, but not to the point where wackaloons within the cause damage the cause.  This is precisely what is happening to Christianity (and Islam) with Creationism.

 

One day, when the country awakens to the nonsense and dishonesty of Creationism, the entire cause of American Christianity will take a big hit.  Perhaps it already has, and Creationism is the last gasp of a dying philosophy.  It is a stand taken on faith despite good reasons to see it as a fraud and a con.  It is this faith despite reason that drives the wackaloon element-- they need such an issue to demonstrate their faith.  As if the resurrection wasn't enough.  I guess it wasn't, after all.

 

When the people realize that they have been conned, who will hold evangelicalism in suspicion?  The evangelicals?  No, they're beyond such reasonable conclusions.  It's the moderate, intelligent Christians who will see, once again, the dishonesty of people who are in their own club.  The moderates will tend to be winnowed out, leaving no one but the Westboro Baptist Church and Bill and Rram and the professional Creationists who make a good living off the ignorance and gullibility of uneducated sheeple.  

 

The moderate Christians have made their bed and chosen their bedfellows.  They, in their silence, are discrediting Christianity by saying and doing nothing about those who actively seek to dishonor any good thing Christianity ever stood for.

 

I'm glad I'm out.  The behavior of Cristians is one big reason why I left that religion.  We see it here all the time.  If Christianity plows a field in which lies are grown, why support such an institution?  Christianity has outgrown honesty and truth, and replaced it with agendas that have nothing to do with the better nature of mankind.

 

DF

DF,
I believe it's instead about their solidarity to the same unreasonable mythology, shared by other believers, and based solely on faith that allows religious moderates to be dragged along with the kooks. As with the kooks, the moderates have placed their entire world view on top a house of cards. If one were to challenge any of its foundation, the whole thing could easily crumble. Besides, it's not at all in the moderate's nature to cause waves or stir for change. Moderates are more often than not very willing to be pulled along indifferently by stronger forces, whether for good or bad. What the rest of us see from the outside is that their "cause" is already damaged and frail. I suspect many of them already suspect this, which is why the moderates stay passive and the kooks are manic with despair and lash out. The kooks just make all the shared nonsense blatantly obvious and public.

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
Originally Posted by vega:

Crust, how old is your knowing the Earth to be or not to be?

___________________

Asked and answered.  Why do you ask again? 

crust, I've never asked of anyone an answer to that question; certainly not you. The task at hand is for you to devise some way of satisfying my query.

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by vega:
Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
quote: Originally Posted by vega:

vic your reads much better. thanks 


Hi Vega,

 

Did you mean, "Vic, your story reads much better"?  I am not sure how to read your comment.

 

Are you saying that you believe that Darwin had a deathbed conversion?  That story has been refuted and proven wrong long ago -- by both secular and Christian sources. 

 

*********************************

 

That word "Vic" should tip you off he was talking to me, not you.

 

Vic, yours reads much better.

 

It was not refuted. There are stories told to the contrari but they are just fodder. I warn against aligning with anyone claiming proof of Darwin's deathbed confession being fabricated.

 

   The silence of DF and ADOT on this issue is also telling. Even a caveman will agree it's true.

___

Give it up, for Pete's sake.  This Darwin/deathbed fable is bogus.  It has been thoroughly refuted.  Those who continue to promote it are in the same class as the "birther" nuts who still believe the President was born somewhere other than in the U.S.

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_cul4.htm/

http://www.answersingenesis.or...ed-conversion-legend

http://www.younginquirers.com/...ter/0503/darwin.html

con10dah LadyHope is credible while your sources are poppycock attemps to score points with DF&Co.

Originally Posted by: Bill Gray

The only people I have seen use this term is you and Chick -- so, you have lost me.

I do believe you are a Christian believer.  I have no reason to doubt your sincerity.

Well, I suppose when you and Chick tell me what your "snarky" means -- we can talk about it. Until then, why don't we limit our dialogues to discussing God's Written Word.

Bill

_______

Bill, I have never used the word snarky when speaking to you. If you can show me that I have, then I will apologize, but you won’t find it.

 

You lie, Bill, when you say you believe O No to be a Christian believer & that you have no reason to doubt her sincerity about being a Christian. I can show you with your past post where you have said she wasn’t a Christian or that you questioned her sincerity. As soon as I get time, I will find those & post them. Of course, as usual, you’ll run, or have the post deleted, which is what you do when confronted with your lies but at least it will show others the liar that you are.

 

Why don’t you limit your dialogue to discussing something besides Duh!, lying, & treating everyone here like we’re all stupid? Oh, My! How silly of me…you don’t answer questions because no one here is smart enough to ask “intelligent” questions.

You really should find another forum. One that has people that can ask you intelligent questions.

Originally Posted by vega:
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
Originally Posted by vega:

Crust, how old is your knowing the Earth to be or not to be?

___________________

Asked and answered.  Why do you ask again? 

crust, I've never asked of anyone an answer to that question; certainly not you. The task at hand is for you to devise some way of satisfying my query.

Crust, you didn't answer!!!!

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×