Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Fun from Facebook: Fake ID pages

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

For months, some ID-friendly Facebookers have been trying to draw my attention to fake-ID Facebook pages. But Facebook is one of those systems I use without fully understanding it, so resisted getting involved.

Well, yesterday, I got clear enough information to have a look:

… you are still listed as a member on the fraudulent group. Could you please post a Warning message to that wall stating “Official Page here is a FAKE ID group run by an atheist with a FAKE account. Please do not support his fraud”.

Possibly, even a short write-up about the profile in this OP, as we have been trying to get this fraud shut down for a year?

Okay. So far as I can see, these are legitimate ID-oriented Facebook pages:

The Official ID Facebook Page (over 7000 members).

I don’t know what makes that page official. The ID community has no governing body. But it is probably representative of a large section of lay interest.

I also commend to your interest (775 members) Natural Genetic Engineering, which is named in honour of well-known molecular biologist and Darwin critic James Shapiro.

And Intelligent Design – Consistent with the program Discovery Institute (790 members) I don’t think the Discovery Institute sponsors the page; more likely, the members feel they are more in line with its goals.

Readers may wish to suggest other such pages; these are only the ones I have been asked or permitted to post links to, to spur discussions.

Okay, now about fake pages, here is one: It has 2780 members, and the artwork looks like it could be from an official page. Indeed, as the founder of the “official” ID page put it, “That’s the other thing is that since they stole our name, and copy our cover photos, it causes some members to do a double take not sure just exactly which board they’re on.”

When I posted links yesterday from Uncommon Descent to the Official ID Facebook Page, those links were appearing a sidebar at the fake page  (that, of course, may not continue hereafter). So it might at times look very much like the actual page.

It turned out I was even a member (no longer). How did that happen? I have been informed,

The purpose of his FAKE Behe and Meyer accounts is to collect creationist friends that he dumps into his fake group without permission (that’s how you ended up there) and the purpose of his FAKE group is to mock ID while booting everyone who defends ID, …

I have since left the group I never intentionally joined.

You wouldn’t even really notice what the page was unless you happened to read the intro copy written by Christopher Hartsil:

Irreducible complexity remains fallacious on a number of levels. Out of the gate it is a gap argument as not knowing how X developed is not evidence *for* anything. Secondly are the falsification criteria. They each are separate fallacies themselves.

So it obviously isn’t an ID page and one wonders how many of those some thousands of supposed members have any idea they have been enrolled.

There was a fake Mike Behe page quite recently, but it has been removed, I am told it will likely be replaced by another. Other ID theorists also have/have had/will have fake pages dedicated to detracting them as well. The Genesis Key was offered as another example, apparently from the same shop.

Some ID opponents defend the practice of fake pages. For example,

I would support ID if its claims were based on actual science. I am here because it is clearly not science, and I cannot allow ID to use MY cloak to fool its victims.

So instead of making clear that he does not support ID, he belongs to a fake ID page…

Two takehome points: People would not engage in these antics if they thought they could compete in an open forum.

Second, if they get a tighter hold on the whip hand, expect more than fake Facebook pages from them.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
You missed the point that you've been refuted 10 fold and nobody cares about your ridiculous pinned OP on your bogus ID page. Get a life.Paleysghost
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT
Then you try addressing my objection to IC in the pinned post of my ID group. No one in the other ID group could manage to even start. Irreducible complexity remains fallacious on a number of levels. Out of the gate it is a gap argument as not knowing how X developed is not evidence *for* anything. Secondly are the falsification criteria. They each are separate fallacies themselves. Falsification criteria 1: Show that the system retains original function upon loss or removal of a protein or component. This is a strawman as well as ignorance of the process of co-optation. No one who is remotely literate in molecular biology is claiming that it should retain original function. What is important is that it has *a* function which can be selected for. Co-optation can and has been observed to produce systems which are comprised of components which cannot be knocked out without rendering the system functionless via multiple complementary mutations and modular of existing systems. Falsification criteria 2: Demonstrate an evolutionary pathway to an IC system. This is in direct contradiction to the definition of IC which includes “a system with no evolutionary pathway” That means if you show ­an evolu­tionary pa­thway then the system you’ve debunked will be discarded, not IC itself. Also the fact that ID proponents will say that certain systems which are known to have evolved cannot be IC speci­fically because we know they evolved is saying ignorance is a sufficient reason to believe IC.CHartsil
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
You can start here, on the short list: Michael Behe, “Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference” Irreducible Complexity: The Challenge to the Darwinian Evolutionary Explanations of many Biochemical Structures Casey Luskin, “More Similarities between Flagellum and Human-Designed Machines” (Evolution News and Views, June 30, 2008) Casey Luskin, “Leading Biologists Marvel at the “Irreducible Complexity” of the Ribosome, but Prefer Evolution-of-the-Gaps” (Evolution News and Views, Feb. 1, 2008) Casey Luskin, “Molecular Machines in the Cell” Molecular Machines Animations and Movies Video: William Dembski on Molecular Machines and the Death of Darwinism Video: Journey Inside the Cell Michael Behe’s Responses to Critics of Irreducible Complexity Michael Behe, “Reducible Versus Irreducible Systems and Darwinian Versus Non-Darwinian Processes” (Evolution News and Views, Sept. 14, 2009) Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions” Michael Behe On The Theory of Irreducible Complexity Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature: Response to Critics” Michael Behe, “Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems: A Reply to Shanks and Joplin” (Philosophy of Science, March, 2000) Michael Behe, “A Mousetrap Defended: Response to Critics” Michael Behe, “In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison” Michael Behe, “‘A True Acid Test’: Response to Ken Miller” Michael Behe “Comments on Ken Miller’s Reply to My Essays” Responses to Kenneth Miller on Irreducible Complexity William Dembski, “Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller” Casey Luskin, “Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum” (Evolution News and Views, June 30, 2008) Casey Luskin, “Kenneth Miller, Michael Behe, and the Irreducible Complexity of the Blood Clotting Cascade Saga” (Evolution News and Views, January 1, 2010) Casey Luskin, “Truth or Dare: A Lecture Guide to the Anti-Intelligent Design Claims by Dr. Kenneth Miller” Scott A. Minnich & Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria,” Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece Michael Behe, “In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison” Michael Behe, “‘A True Acid Test’: Response to Ken Miller” Michael Behe “Comments on Ken Miller’s Reply to My Essays” Michael Behe, “‘A True Acid Test’: Response to Ken Miller” Michael Behe “Comments on Ken Miller’s Reply to My Essays” Responses to Kenneth Miller on Irreducible Complexity William Dembski, “Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller” Casey Luskin, “Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum” (Evolution News and Views, June 30, 2008) Casey Luskin, “Kenneth Miller, Michael Behe, and the Irreducible Complexity of the Blood Clotting Cascade Saga” (Evolution News and Views, January 1, 2010) Casey Luskin, “Truth or Dare: A Lecture Guide to the Anti-Intelligent Design Claims by Dr. Kenneth Miller” Scott A. Minnich & Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria,” Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece Michael Behe, “In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison” Michael Behe, “‘A True Acid Test’: Response to Ken Miller” Michael Behe “Comments on Ken Miller’s Reply to My Essays”Paleysghost
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
Then you try addressing my objection to IC in the pinned post of my ID group. No one in the other ID group could manage to even start. Irreducible complexity remains fallacious on a number of levels. Out of the gate it is a gap argument as not knowing how X developed is not evidence *for* anything. Secondly are the falsification criteria. They each are separate fallacies themselves. Falsification criteria 1: Show that the system retains original function upon loss or removal of a protein or component. This is a strawman as well as ignorance of the process of co-optation. No one who is remotely literate in molecular biology is claiming that it should retain original function. What is important is that it has *a* function which can be selected for. Co-optation can and has been observed to produce systems which are comprised of components which cannot be knocked out without rendering the system functionless via multiple complementary mutations and modular of existing systems. Falsification criteria 2: Demonstrate an evolutionary pathway to an IC system. This is in direct contradiction to the definition of IC which includes “a system with no evolutionary pathway” That means if you show ­an evolutionary pa­thway then the system you’ve debunked will be discard­ed, not IC itself. Also the fact that ID proponents will say that certain systems which are known to have evolved can­not be IC speci­fically because we know they evolved is saying ignorance is a sufficient reason to believe IC.CHartsil
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
You missed the point that IC itself is fallacy.CHartsil
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT
Everyone on the ID group refuted you on the first day.Paleysghost
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT
Then you try addressing my objection to IC in the pinned post of my ID group. No one in the other ID group could manage to even start. Irreducible complexity remains fallacious on a number of levels. Out of the gate it is a gap argument as not knowing how X developed is not evidence *for* anything. Secondly are the falsification criteria. They each are separate fallacies themselves. Falsification criteria 1: Show that the system retains original function upon loss or removal of a protein or component. This is a strawman as well as ignorance of the process of co-optation. No one who is remotely literate in molecular biology is claiming that it should retain original function. What is important is that it has *a* function which can be selected for. Co-optation can and has been observed to produce systems which are comprised of components which cannot be knocked out without rendering the system functionless via multiple complementary mutations and modular of existing systems. Falsification criteria 2: Demonstrate an evolutionary pathway to an IC system. This is in direct contradiction to the definition of IC which includes “a system with no evolutionary pathway” That means if you show ­an evolutionary pa­thway then the system you’ve debunked will be discarded, not IC itself. Also the fact that ID proponents will say that certain systems which are known to have evolved can­not be IC speci­fically because we know they evolved is saying ignorance is a sufficient reason to believe IC.CHartsil
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
You can start here, on the short list: Michael Behe, “Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference” Irreducible Complexity: The Challenge to the Darwinian Evolutionary Explanations of many Biochemical Structures Casey Luskin, “More Similarities between Flagellum and Human-Designed Machines” (Evolution News and Views, June 30, 2008) Casey Luskin, “Leading Biologists Marvel at the “Irreducible Complexity” of the Ribosome, but Prefer Evolution-of-the-Gaps” (Evolution News and Views, Feb. 1, 2008) Casey Luskin, “Molecular Machines in the Cell” Molecular Machines Animations and Movies Video: William Dembski on Molecular Machines and the Death of Darwinism Video: Journey Inside the Cell Michael Behe’s Responses to Critics of Irreducible Complexity Michael Behe, “Reducible Versus Irreducible Systems and Darwinian Versus Non-Darwinian Processes” (Evolution News and Views, Sept. 14, 2009) Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions” Michael Behe On The Theory of Irreducible Complexity Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature: Response to Critics” Michael Behe, “Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems: A Reply to Shanks and Joplin” (Philosophy of Science, March, 2000) Michael Behe, “A Mousetrap Defended: Response to Critics” Michael Behe, “In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison” Michael Behe, “‘A True Acid Test’: Response to Ken Miller” Michael Behe “Comments on Ken Miller’s Reply to My Essays” Responses to Kenneth Miller on Irreducible Complexity William Dembski, “Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller” Casey Luskin, “Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum” (Evolution News and Views, June 30, 2008) Casey Luskin, “Kenneth Miller, Michael Behe, and the Irreducible Complexity of the Blood Clotting Cascade Saga” (Evolution News and Views, January 1, 2010) Casey Luskin, “Truth or Dare: A Lecture Guide to the Anti-Intelligent Design Claims by Dr. Kenneth Miller” Scott A. Minnich & Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria,” Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece Michael Behe, “In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison” Michael Behe, “‘A True Acid Test’: Response to Ken Miller” Michael Behe “Comments on Ken Miller’s Reply to My Essays”Paleysghost
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
Then you try addressing my objection to IC in the pinned post of my ID group. No one in the other ID group could manage to even start. Irreducible complexity remains fallacious on a number of levels. Out of the gate it is a gap argument as not knowing how X developed is not evidence *for* anything. Secondly are the falsification criteria. They each are separate fallacies themselves. Falsification criteria 1: Show that the system retains original function upon loss or removal of a protein or component. This is a strawman as well as ignorance of the process of co-optation. No one who is remotely literate in molecular biology is claiming that it should retain original function. What is important is that it has *a* function which can be selected for. Co-optation can and has been observed to produce systems which are comprised of components which cannot be knocked out without rendering the system functionless via multiple complementary mutations and modular of existing systems. Falsification criteria 2: Demonstrate an evolutionary pathway to an IC system. This is in direct contradiction to the definition of IC which includes “a system with no evolutionary pathway” That means if you show ­an evolutionary pa­thway then the system you’ve debunked will be discarded, not IC itself. Also the fact that ID proponents will say that certain systems which are known to have evolved cannot be IC speci­fically because we know they evolved is saying ignorance is a sufficient reason to believe IC.CHartsil
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
The horrible pinned OP on your admittedly bogus group was shredded 50 times by over 30 different people before you booted them from your group and deleted their comments. I have real work to do here in between responding to your troll spam comments after you've been booted 5 times from this site. Removing trash from your home is not synonymous with censorship. Everything you had to say remains on this thread and you are merely repeating yourself, now. Get a life, as the rest of us have a job to do.Paleysghost
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
Then you try addressing my objection to IC in the pinned post of my ID group. No one in the other ID group could manage to even start. Irreducible complexity remains fallacious on a number of levels. Out of the gate it is a gap argument as not knowing how X developed is not evidence *for* anything. Secondly are the falsification criteria. They each are separate fallacies themselves. Falsification criteria 1: Show that the system retains original function upon loss or removal of a protein or component. This is a strawman as well as ignorance of the process of co-optation. No one who is remotely literate in molecular biology is claiming that it should retain original function. What is important is that it has *a* function which can be selected for. Co-optation can and has been observed to produce systems which are comprised of components which cannot be knocked out without rendering the system functionless via multiple complementary mutations and modular of existing systems. Falsification criteria 2: Demonstrate an evolutionary pathway to an IC system. This is in direct contradiction to the definition of IC which includes “a system with no evolutionary pathway” That means if you show ­an evolutionary pa­thway then the system you’ve debunked will be discarded, not IC itself. Also the fact that ID proponents will say that certain systems which are known to have evolved cannot be IC specifically because we know they evolved is saying ignorance is a sufficient reason to believe IC.CHartsil
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
Waiting for your next response. …because we all know you will be responding. The guy ADMITS to 50,000 readers that he is making FAKE Behe and Meyer accounts and ADMITS to being an atheist who starts fraudulent Christian groups and ADMITS to having a large amount of FAKE profiles already pre-made and ready to go and then claims: “He’s the victim”. https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDOfficialPage/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignTheory/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDIDI777ID/Paleysghost
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
Then you try addressing my objection to IC in the pinned post of my ID group. No one in the other ID group could manage to even start. Irreducible complexity remains fallacious on a number of levels. Out of the gate it is a gap argument as not knowing how X developed is not evidence *for* anything. Secondly are the falsification criteria. They each are separate fallacies themselves. Falsification criteria 1: Show that the system retains original function upon loss or removal of a protein or component. This is a strawman as well as ignorance of the process of co-optation. No one who is remotely literate in molecular biology is claiming that it should retain original function. What is important is that it has *a* function which can be selected for. Co-optation can and has been observed to produce systems which are comprised of components which cannot be knocked out without rendering the system functionless via multiple complementary mutations and modular of existing systems. Falsification criteria 2: Demonstrate an evolutionary pathway to an IC system. This is in direct contradiction to the definition of IC which includes “a system with no evolutionary pathway” That means if you show ­an evolutionary pathway then the system you’ve debunked will be discarded, not IC itself. Also the fact that ID proponents will say that certain systems which are known to have evolved cannot be IC specifically because we know they evolved is saying ignorance is a sufficient reason to believe IC.CHartsil
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
Want to keep going, proven liar? Are you a POE working for the Discovery Institute? No legitimate person could possibly be this dense, as to voluntarily expose themselves on a public blog.Paleysghost
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
Then you try addressing my objection to IC in the pinned post of my ID group. No one in the other ID group could manage to even start. Irreducible complexity remains fallacious on a number of levels. Out of the gate it is a gap argument as not knowing how X developed is not evidence *for* anything. Secondly are the falsification criteria. They each are separate fallacies themselves. Falsification criteria 1: Show that the system retains original function upon loss or removal of a protein or component. This is a strawman as well as ignorance of the process of co-optation. No one who is remotely literate in molecular biology is claiming that it should retain original function. What is important is that it has *a* function which can be selected for. Co-optation can and has been observed to produce systems which are comprised of components which cannot be knocked out without rendering the system functionless via multiple complementary mutations and modular of existing systems. Falsification criteria 2: Demonstrate an evolutionary pathway to an IC system. This is in direct contradiction to the definition of IC which includes "a system with no evolutionary pathway" That means if you show an evolutionary pathway then the system you've debunked will be discarded, not IC itself. Also the fact that ID proponents will say that certain systems which are known to have evolved cannot be IC specifically because we know they evolved is saying ignorance is a sufficient reason to believe IC.CHartsil
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
Waiting for your next response. …because we all know you will be responding. So, let’s do a recap… The guy ADMITS to 50,000 readers that he is making FAKE Behe and Meyer accounts and ADMITS to being an atheist who starts fraudulent Christian groups and ADMITS to having a large amount of FAKE profiles already pre-made and ready to go and then claims: “He’s the victim”. https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDOfficialPage/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignTheory/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDIDI777ID/Paleysghost
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
Then you try addressing my objection to IC in the pinned post of my ID group. No one in the other ID group could manage to even start. http://twitter.com/UncommonDescent http://www.facebook.com/UncommonDescent http://www.facebook.com/groups/UncommonDescentCHartsil
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
What's the problem? Can't you censor and delete the truth here like you do when called out on your bogus groups?Paleysghost
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
Lincoln Phipps, Chris Koontz, Dave Keihl, Keith Fosberg and a bunch more are on the legitimate page criticizing ID Theory at this very moment. You were booted because you are a pathetic troll and an annoying joke, which is the same reason why you have been booted from UD 6 times in the past day. Get a clue. https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDOfficialPage/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignTheory/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDIDI777ID/Paleysghost
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
Want to keep going, proven liar?Paleysghost
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
Then you try addressing my objection to IC in the pinned post of my ID group. No one in the other ID group could manage to even start.CHartsil
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
"Articles" lol "After all, That’s what a jobless psychopath does." Psychological projection is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.CHartsil
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
Lincoln Phipps, Chris Koontz, Dave Keihl, Keith Fosberg and a bunch more are on the legitimate page criticizing ID Theory at this very moment. You were booted because you are a pathetic troll and an annoying joke, which is the same reason why you have been booted from UD 6 times in the past day. Get a clue. https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDOfficialPage/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignTheory/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDIDI777ID/Paleysghost
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
Got that creationist run page that doesn’t censor criticism yet? I’d bet not. http://twitter.com/UncommonDescent http://www.facebook.com/UncommonDescent http://www.facebook.com/groups/UncommonDescentCHartsil
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
We know that you can't help responding here (where we work and write articles on an hourly basis), can you? After all, That's what a jobless psychopath does. :)Paleysghost
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
Waiting for your next response. ...because we all know you will be responding. So, let’s do a recap… The guy ADMITS to 50,000 readers that he is making FAKE Behe and Meyer accounts and ADMITS to being an atheist who starts fraudulent Christian groups and ADMITS to having a large amount of FAKE profiles already pre-made and ready to go and then claims: “He’s the victim”. https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDOfficialPage/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignTheory/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDIDI777ID/Paleysghost
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
Got that creationist run page that doesn't censor criticism yet? I'd bet notCHartsil
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
77 comments proving with your own testimony and actions that you are a joke and a pathetic liar with you boosting UD site activity with every post. Let's keep going. :)Paleysghost
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
Did you seriously just sign in with your 6th account to make a bigger fool out yourself? You don’t actually have a job or purpose in life, huh? https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDOfficialPage/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignTheory/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDIDI777ID/Paleysghost
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
I'm actually a female, thus again proving your complete incompetence. You also had the last word 5 accounts ago, but clearly felt as if you had more to say on the topic of Lies and Fraud.Paleysghost
December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply