LOL. Is that the best you got?

It's not even my quote!!! But the fact that you've tried to use it against me shows just how much you guys piss into the wind to avoid reason.

Show me where I stated that.

Now answer the question I put to you.

Bastage:

LOL. Is that the best you got?

It's not even my quote!!! But the fact that you've tried to use it against me shows just how much you guys piss into the wind to avoid reason.

Show me where I stated that.

Bastage we are waiting for your answer.

Does religion define your genetic make up? Yes or No with concrete proof please.

Is a person born to religious parents genetically religious? Proof pls.

thank you.

Bastage wetin happen? fuel don finish?

Does religion define your genetic make up?

In certain cases, it obviously has. The links below show chromosomes in people that would not have been present if it were not for religious influence. Certain chromosomes in Christian Spaniards would not be present if it wasn't for invasion based on Islamic ideals and certain chromosomes would not be present in Lebanese men if it wasn't for the Christian Crusades. I've said that religion has influenced genetics and I stick by it. I totally and utterly refute your accusation that I have stated that there is a "Muslim gene". Anyone can read through and see that I haven't. It's pretty logical to anyone that I haven't as you two dipshits would be copying and pasting my words instead of each other's.

As for proof? Here are the three links again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7316281.stm
Scientists have detected the faint genetic traces left by medieval crusaders in the Middle East.
The team says it found a particular DNA signature which recently appeared in Lebanon and is probably linked to the crusades.
Details of the research have been published in the American Journal of Human Genetics.
The researchers found that some Christian men in Lebanon carry a DNA signature hailing from Western Europe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/07/genetics-conversion-catholicism-spain-religion
"An international team of scientists has uncovered striking evidence that mass conversions to Catholicism by Sephardic Jews and Muslims took place in the 15th and 16th centuries in Spain and Portugal. The research was carried out by a team led by Professor Mark Jobling of Leicester University and Francesc Calafell of the Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona. They found that 20 per cent of men in Spain and Portugal today still have distinctive Sephardic Jewish ancestry while 11 per cent have DNA that reflects Moorish ancestors."


http://spittoon.23andme.com/2008/04/22/historical-genetics-researchers-find-traces-of-crusades-spread-of-islam-in-lebanon/
"Generally, the DNA in a man’s Y-chromosome contains information about prehistoric migrations that happened many millennia in the past. But a recent study of men in Lebanon shows that genetics can be a reflection of more recent events as well.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/globe.html
"Since humans first populated the globe, they've created civilisations, spread religions, colonised distant lands, waged war and experienced pandemics. Through the past 7000 years this has left marks on genetic records."

Is a person born to religious parents genetically religious? Proof please.

Utterly irrelevant. I have never suggested so.

Now, I've answered your question and given the proof. How about answering mine?

Has religion influenced genes?

I'm not interested in any drivel you may have about the links. All I'm interested in is the answer.

In certain cases, it obviously has.

He has started again! It's obvious Bastage is grammatically challenged, I noticed this when he responded to my question about the pursuit of religious ideals by telling me that Stalin pursued religious people.

The question Bastage has been asked:

Does religion define your genetic make up?

is the same he proclaimed not to even countenance. It's as good as asking whether there is a gene for religion. By claiming that this is so in certain cases, this idiot is repudiating what he has said earlier.

Would you like to explain to me how a gene that is only present in a human-being's body due to religious influence (as in the cases I've posted above) has not defined the make-up of that person's genetics?

Bastage:

In certain cases, it obviously has. The links below show chromosomes in people that would not have been present if it were not for religious influence. Certain chromosomes in Christian Spaniards would not be present if it wasn't for invasion based on Islamic ideals and certain chromosomes would not be present in Lebanese men if it wasn't for the Christian Crusades. I've said that religion has influenced genetics and I stick by it. I totally and utterly refute your accusation that I have stated that there is a "Muslim gene". Anyone can read through and see that I haven't. It's pretty logical to anyone that I haven't as you two dipshits would be copying and pasting my words instead of each other's.

What you fool just described above here is population redistribution having an effect on genetic markers in groups of the population today.

1. the study you highlighted yesterday (which of course you woolhead couldnt read) never said anything about the religious orientation of the Spanish men involved . . .

2. I've said that religion has influenced genetics and I stick by it. - this makes no shred of sense. HOW has religion influenced genetics? Where is the scientific proof to justify your "i stick by it"?

3. Here is an important comment Huxley (who is no friend of christians) made yesterday - The campaigns of Ghenghis khan left ist mark right across the Asian continent. His genes and those of his soldier are still traceable in people living today from China to the hills of Istanbul.  Does this also mean that warfare has a direct impact/influence on genetics.  I mean warfare and NOT the indirect consequences of warfare, which tends to "redistribute" populations.

I notice you pretended not to see his question so i have presented it to you again.

Bastage:

As for proof? Here are the three links again:

the only thing those links "prove" is that you have a problem with complex reasoning. You just google "muslim, genetics" and post the very first article you see.

Bastage:

Has religion influenced genes?

I answered and even used font size 28 to emphasize it in case you were also visually impaired.

Bastage:

Would you like to explain to me how a gene that is only present in a human-being's body due to religious influence (as in the cases I've posted above) has not defined the make-up of that person's genetics?

you just keep yapping about "questions" . . . when are you going to "explain" your own positions besides merely "sticking by it"?

Did the crusaders leave genetic traits in Lebanese population SIMPLY for religious purposes?

Now your question above is again a symptom of the fact that many of you who come here drooling about science dont really know anything. Every man on earth has exactly the same genes . . . the difference is in their regulation. It is thus impossible for a gene to be ONLY PRESENT in certain people due to religious influence. What DNA profiling tests is NOT the presence or absence of genes but minuscle and sometimes phenotypically unnoticeable patterns in certain genes. For example the presence of variable tandem repeats.

Go back and ask for a refund of your school fees pls.

Bastage:

Would you like to explain to me how a gene that is only present in a human-being's body due to religious influence (as in the cases I've posted above) has not defined the make-up of that person's genetics?

What a clumsily constructed question.

David's question:does religion define genetic make up; is merely asking you whether there are unique genetic make ups in relation to religion, whether Ethiopian Christians share a common genetic make up with Indian Christians.

That is quite apart from the question of whether events inspired by religion may affect breeding choices, this is obviously the case, without the need for links, because every day babies are delivered at hospitals in circumstances where the parents' decision to hook up was because they shared the same faith.

The former is obtuse, the latter is blindingly obvious. Problem is, all our queries has been in regard to the former. To think I've been debating a grammatically challenged buffoon.

1. the study you highlighted yesterday (which of course you woolhead couldnt read) never said anything about the religious orientation of the Spanish men involved . . .

Then what is a conversion. You dickhead.
Let me remind you: "An international team of scientists has uncovered striking evidence that mass conversions to Catholicism by Sephardic Jews and Muslims took place in the 15th and 16th centuries in Spain and Portugal.

2. I've said that religion has influenced genetics and I stick by it. - this makes no shred of sense. HOW has religion influenced genetics? Where is the scientific proof to justify your "i stick by it"?

Argue with The National Geographical Society and The Human Genome Project.
""Since humans first populated the globe, they've created civilisations, spread religions, colonised distant lands, waged war and experienced pandemics. Through the past 7000 years this has left marks on genetic records."

See the words there. "Humans spread religions"? "This has left marks on genetic records"? Dickhead.

As for Huxley's question? "Does this also mean that warfare has a direct impact/influence on genetics."
Direct impact no. Indirect impact yes. Influence yes. Warfare influenced the direct impact on the genetic change in this instance. Just as I have stated that religion has had an influence. Do you know what an influence is? It's the word I've used repeatedly in this thread. Hide behind as much shitty wordplay as you like.

the only thing those links "prove" is that you have a problem with complex reasoning. You just google "muslim, genetics" and post the very first article you see.

And that makes National Geographic irrelevant does it? Your ignorance in trying to belittle them makes you nothing but a prat. Let me post this again. I love it.

"Since humans first populated the globe, they've created civilisations, spread religions, colonised distant lands, waged war and experienced pandemics. Through the past 7000 years this has left marks on genetic records."

Hmm let's look at that again. We can see the words "religion has left marks on genetic records". Of course, you would say that leaving a mark on the genetic code is not an "influence". What is it then dickhead? A mirage?

I answered and even used font size 28 to emphasize it in case you were also visually impaired.

The question wasn't aimed at you. You are irrelevant. As I've already stated, I expect nothing less from you than a denial of truth. You're too stupid to have the capacity to do the twisting and turning that 4-Play has displayed and like I said, you'd dive into a pile of dog-shit if someone told you it was Holy Water. You'd probably then tell anyone who told you you smell bad, that it's "God's Mark" and anyone who suggests it's dog-shit is mad.

Is it any wonder secularists don't want the influence of retards like you in their lives?

David's question:does religion define genetic make up; is merely asking you whether there are unique genetic make ups in relation to religion, whether Ethiopian Christians share a common genetic make up with Indian Christians.

We're back to the "Muslim gene" game again aren't we? Tell me just what the feck that has to do with the topic? I've never suggested for one moment that there are unique genetic make-ups. How many times do you want me to refute it before you'll stop asking the question? I know for a fact that Palestinians share a gene with Jews. They had a common bond before the former's conversion to Islam. So why the feck would I suggest otherwise? The question here is not wether or not there is some unique gene in relation to religion. The question is wether there is a genetic change present in a population that would not be present if religion had not had an influence. In the case of the Spaniards - no Muslim invasion, no chromosome. In the case of the Crusades, no Christian Invasion, no chromosome. Which part of that don't you understand?

Bastage:

Then what is a conversion. You dickhead.
Let me remind you: "An international team of scientists has uncovered striking evidence that mass conversions to Catholicism by Sephardic Jews and Muslims took place in the 15th and 16th centuries in Spain and Portugal.

Spamhead . . . the "conversion" in that article (which you never read by the way) . . . did not imply that it had anything to do with why they find sephardic genetic markers in Spanish males but was used as a way to rationalise why despite a lack of a distinct jewish culture in Spain they could still find traces of Jewish lineage. i.e. it was an attempt to ask the broad question - where did the jewish ancestors come from? Did they leave Spain altogether or intermingled with the native population and thus lost their unique culture?

Who taught you logic in school? That person failed woefully.

Bastage:

Argue with The National Geographical Society and The Human Genome Project.
""Since humans first populated the globe, they've created civilisations, spread religions, colonised distant lands, waged war and experienced pandemics. Through the past 7000 years this has left marks on genetic records."

See the words there. "Humans spread religions"? "This has left marks on genetic records"? Dickhead.

So your entire premise is built on shaky word play? What a tool.

Based on the statement, we can thus conclude that creation of civilisation, colonization of distant lands, war and pandemics left marks on genetic records. You have deceptively singled out religion alone.

Now can you explain how creation of civilization leaves a mark on genetic recordsd? If you look at the big picture of that statement . . . population redistribution as a result of various factors is what is responsible for this genetic markers.

Did religion play a role in redistributing population? Yes . . . is there a specific gene that regulates religion (which was exactly ur point last night)? No.

It seems you have gone home to tweak your argument since last night.

The rest of your piffle is not worth looking into. I have a game to play.

We're back to the "Muslim gene" game again aren't we? Tell me just what the feck that has to do with the topic? I've never suggested for one moment that there are unique genetic make-ups. How many times do you want me to refute it before you'll stop asking the question? I know for a fact that Palestinians share a gene with Jews. They had a common bond before the former's conversion to Islam. So why the feck would I suggest otherwise? The question here is not wether or not there is some unique gene in relation to religion. The question is wether there is a genetic change present in a population that would not be present if religion had not had an influence. In the case of the Spaniards - no Muslim invasion, no chromosome. In the case of the Crusades, no Christian Invasion, no chromosome. Which part of that don't you understand?

So your answer to David's question should be no instead of prattling on and suddenly realising you are answering the wrong question.

As for the question of relevance; what the hell does religious influence on genetic make up have to do with understanding the impact of religion on man's conduct, whether Mao's or Stalin's? It is nothing but a complete and utter red herring that leads me to believe you are clinging to it in an attempt to save face

Spamhead . . . the "conversion" in that article (which you never read by the way) . . . did not imply that it had anything to do with why they find sephardic genetic markers in Spanish males but was used as a way to rationalise why despite a lack of a distinct jewish culture in Spain they could still find traces of Jewish lineage. i.e. it was an attempt to ask the broad question - where did the jewish ancestors come from? Did they leave Spain altogether or intermingled with the native population and thus lost their unique culture?

Idiot. Your twisted logic may explain the Jews away. Now try to explain away the Muslims. They are, after all, the group that I have concentrated on.

So your entire premise is built on shaky word play? What a tool.

"Since humans first populated the globe, they've created civilisations, spread religions, colonised distant lands, waged war and experienced pandemics. Through the past 7000 years this has left marks on genetic records."

That's "shaky wordplay"? Please don't make me laugh. An illiterate 3 year old would be able to understand what it says.

Based on the statement, we can thus conclude that creation of civilisation, colonization of distant lands, war and pandemics left marks on genetic records.

That's what it says, doesn't it? Idiot.

You have deceptively singled out religion alone.

Prick. Religion is the topic under discussion.

Now can you explain how creation of civilization leaves a mark on genetic recordsd? If you look at the big picture of that statement . . . population redistribution as a result of various factors is what is responsible for this genetic markers.

LMAO. Yet again a smoke-screen. You hide behind "population redistribution"? What was the Islamic invasion of Spain. What were the Crusades? They were population redistributions. Would the gene change have taken place if Christianity hadn't decided to invade? Would the gene change have taken place if Islam hadn't decided to have invade? No!!!!
Would the gene changes have taken place if those religions did not exist? No!!!

Is there a specific gene that regulates religion (which was exactly ur point last night)? No.

You have access to copy and paste. Show me where I suggested the above. Copy and paste it. Put up or shut up, gimp.

Now can you explain how creation of civilization leaves a mark on genetic recordsd?

Yes I can. But you must be out of your tiny little mind if you think I'm going to move onto another side issue just so that you can make more pathetic attempts to create more of your imbecilic smoke screens.
Google it yourself. You'll find dozens links to science sites like the one below explaining it. I refuse to be drawn further on the subject for the reason given above.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8483-civilisation-has-left-its-mark-on-our-genes.html

So your answer to David's question should be no instead of prattling on and suddenly realising you are answering the wrong question.

LOL. Bullshit. I've repeatedly refuted the question regarding the "Muslim gene". There can be no mistaking whatsoever that I have been talking about the "influence that religion had on genes". To suggest that I should have been trying to answer "Is there a religion gene" is pathetic. Stop backtracking. I haven't been answering the wrong question. Trying to hide behind that is probably the lamest thing you've done so far.

Let me remind you that I was originally (falsely) accused of:

Bastage says Stalin's period of training as a priest is to blame.

You then joined with this:

he craven dolt has dodged his earlier claim; that everything is a product of religion, presumably, even our genetic make up.

My immediate reply was:

Our genetic make-up [i]is[/i]influenced by religion. Tribes adopted religions. They grew stronger and usurped the less well organised. Their genes spread. Why do you think the stereo-type of the Jew with the hook nose exists. Don't Muslims marry other Muslims? Do Christians normally marry Muslims? Doesn't that have an influence on genetic make-up?

There can be no mistake over my use of the word "influence". I didn't say that genetic make up was "created" by religion. I didn't say that it was a "product" of religion. I stated quite clearly that religion was an "influence". I count dozens and dozens of times where I've specifically used the word "influenced" or "influence".

Let's take a look elsewhere at all the times I've refuted the claim that I was talking about a "religious gene". This was yesterday (hardly, as you claim, a change of tactic today then is it?):

This was all about religion having an influence on genetic make-up and now you're burbling that it doesn't prove that there's a "gene for religion". Whoever suggested that there was a gene for religion!!!

Then:

Do I really have to go back and copy and paste my claims that religion has influenced genetics? Not once have I mentioned a "gene for religion".

And then:

My statement was "Religion influenced genes". Nothing else. If you want to argue about a "Muslim gene" go and argue somewhere else you slowpoke.

And in reply to this question:

s a person born to religious parents genetically religious? Proof please.

I made this reply:

Utterly irrelevant. I have never suggested so.

There can be no mistake that this topic had turned into a debate about the "influence" of religion. There can be no mistake that it was not about a "religious gene".

Let me remind you of the question I asked over half a dozen times but which you still refuse to answer.

Has religion influenced genes?

See the word "influenced"? No. It didn't just appear today. There was no sudden U-turn. It's probably the most over-used word in this thread.

This is just ridiculous:

I asked you a question innumerable times as to whether genes have a unique religious element

And you can see from my quotes above that I answered repeatedly that  the question is totally irrelevant as I have not for one second suggested that there is a gene with a unique religious element. To try to squirm away by suggesting that all of this was ever about a "religious gene" just makes me laugh all the more harder in your stupid face.

Stop trying to wriggle out of the hole you've dug.

LOL. Bullshit. I've repeatedly refuted the question regarding the "Muslim gene". There can be no mistaking whatsoever that I have been talking about the "influence that religion had on genes". To suggest that I should have been trying to answer "Is there a religion gene" is pathetic. Stop backtracking. I haven't been answering the wrong question. Trying to hide behind that is probably the lamest thing you've done so far.

You are an idiot. You didn't refute the question of the Muslim gene until your subsequent afterthought. Instead, you quoted the posts asking you whether there is a Muslim gene and then posted copious web links about Moors that were non-sequiturs.

How can you claim there can be no mistaking what you were talking about when even Huxley, having seen your posts, claimed the point you were making was new to him?

To refute a point is to address it. If one asks you about whether a religious gene exists, a refutal will be to make it clear that this is not your position, not to refer them to weblinks addressing another matter which leads everyone to believe you think a religious gene does in fact exist. These questions were put to you repeatedly and you kept on responding with copius references to links that failed to address the subject.

There can be no mistake over my use of the word "influence". I didn't say that genetic make up was "created" by religion. I didn't say that it was a "product" of religion. I stated quite clearly that religion was an "influence". I count dozens and dozens of times where I've specifically used the word "influenced" or "influence".
Let's take a look elsewhere at all the times I've refuted the claim that I was talking about a "religious gene". This was yesterday (hardly, as you claim, a change of tactic today then is it?):

You must be stricken with senility. The posts of yours that you have cited only came after your ''nirvana'',after you made the claim of a total u-turn. Until then, your standard response to every question about a genetic make up unique to religion was to cite articles. My first such question was made here

Do Muslims have a unique genetic make up?

Your ''refutal''

LOL. What a cock. Every single person on this planet has a unique genetic make-up - only identical twins don't differ.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/07/genetics-conversion-catholicism-spain-religion

If you answer a question about a gene for religion by citing the above link, that suggests that the premise of the question is shared by you. The only other rational response would have been to say you don't think there is such a gene, however, you do think religion may have some influence in a community's gene pool.

There can be no mistake that this topic had turned into a debate about the "influence" of religion. There can be no mistake that it was not about a "religious gene".
Let me remind you of the question I asked over half a dozen times but which you still refuse to answer.

How can you make a claim that there can be no such mistake when you are the only person on this thread who now claims that this is what you have been talking all along.

Far from it being a mistake, it is similar to what you did the last time when you kept talking about no historical mention of Jesus outside scripture, only to revamp your argument by claiming that you are talking of contemporaneous mentions.

Had you not done it before, I would have thought it was an honest mistake. To cite your responses after you decided on a new spin is idiotic.

And you can see from my quotes above that I answered repeatedly that  the question is totally irrelevant as I have not for one second suggested that there is a gene with a unique religious element. To try to squirm away by suggesting that all of this was ever about a "religious gene" just makes me laugh all the more harder in your stupid face.
Stop trying to wriggle out of the hole you've dug.

So you never saw this:

Do Muslims have a unique genetic make up?

or this

The evidence of a unique Muslim gene is a copy and paste job about Spain's Moorish ancestors?

 
You are a craven liar reeking of unbridled stupidity. Answered repeatedly? Sure, by referring us to Moors which had nothing to do with the question. To show show you stupid and grammatically challenged you are, you answered this David's question

Does religion define your genetic make up?

by stating thus

In certain cases, it obviously has

Not only were you contradicting yourself in regards to your new opposition to a religious gene but that response is a contradiction of your earlier claim that everything is as a result of religion. If everything is as a result of religion, every genetic make up is as a result of religion. Bloody idiot.

Not only were you contradicting yourself in regards to your new opposition to a religious gene but that response is a contradiction of your earlier claim that everything is as a result of religion. If everything is as a result of religion, every genetic make up is as a result of religion. Bloody idiot.

Stop pretending that you don't know what I was talking about. I made it abundantly clear. The claim that you thought this was about a Muslim gene just makes you look like even more of a cretin than you are.


I would say that you've been very clever manipulating my posts in the way that you have, but the quotations that were made a couple of days ago proving that I was not talking about a "Muslim gene", show that you are nothing but an out and out liar. The fact that I didn't address the question every single time was because it was irrelevant and when I did address it with denial (early on and at least three times) and the answer was ignored, shows you are just making another pathetic attempt to sidetrack this topic.

How can you claim there can be no mistaking what you were talking about when even Huxley, having seen your posts, claimed the point you were making was new to him?

I would suggest that Huxley saw your posts making the ridiculous claim regarding a Muslim gene and was replying to that. Funny how you will stoop to anything, even quoting your worst enemy (an atheist) in your rush to blur the lines. Go take a look on the timing on my posts. You will see that I refuted the idea of a Muslim gene a couple of days ago. Why ask questions if you ignore the answers, cretin?

Here is the post again.

This was all about religion having an influence on genetic make-up and now you're burbling that it doesn't prove that there's a "gene for religion". Whoever suggested that there was a gene for religion!!!

Even the biggest retard can see that I was not arguing the idea of a religous gene.

Your posting of my quote with the link is manipulative. The fact that I posted a refutal of a Muslim gene and then got back on topic by posting an article that shows the "influence" of religion means what exactly? Oh yeah. It means I was right. You are a cock.

There can be absolutely no mistake whatsoever that with the continued use of the word "influence", the links that I posted and my following arguments that I have not once advocated a gene for religion. I would expect nothing else but for you to now burble on about semantics in your next ten posts as you try to get further and further away from the topic.

There is absolutely nowhere in this thread where I use the words "religious gene", "gene for religion" or "Muslim gene" except to refute their existence or describe them as irrelevant to this topic. If, as you claim, I was arguing their corner, don't you think I would have at least argued in their favour using those words at least once!!!!?? According to you, the fact that as long ago as a couple of days ago I told you that a "religion gene" was not an issue here proves that I was arguing for the idea, beggars belief. Logic shows you to be a complete and utter liar.
Let's look at that logic.

Bastage - This car has a big engine.
4-Play - The car is blue.
Bastage - It doesn't matter if it's blue or red. I'm discussing the engine.
4-Play - By saying it doesn't matter you're saying that it is blue.

That is now your argument and it's pure, complete, unadulterated bollocks.

that response is a contradiction of your earlier claim that everything is as a result of religion

Again you have completely and utterly taken my words out of context. I stated that everything was a result of religion in reply to a list of actions given in a question. But again, if it suits your purposes to lie, cheat, swindle and twist, it's no matter as you only screw up later down the line for all to see. Saying that though, I would argue with you that everything in society is influenced by religion in some way. I have no problem arguing that corner although I'm sure you'll find a way to twist the subject.




So how about finally answering the million dollar question that I have asked you eight times and which you have deliberately avoided? Now that you claim to understand the context in which the question has been asked, any refusal just shows that you are continuing to run scared - whatever bulllshit and bluff you would like to use to claim otherwise.

Has religion had an influence on genes?

Stop pretending that you don't know what I was talking about. I made it abundantly clear. The claim that you thought this was about a Muslim gene just makes you look like even more of a cretin than you are.

So abundantly clear it was that nobody else but you, neither David nor Huxley nor I, thought you were advancing a view other than the existence of a religious gene. This guy's imbecility is obviously congenital.

The claim that I thought this was about a Muslim gene? That is hardly a claim for you quoted my queries about a Muslim gene in your very first response citing the Moors link. The question of the religious gene was put to you at least on 8 occasions only for you to re-emerge with resounding stupidity later to proclaim it was a u-turn, a mendacious Arrow that you are.

I would say that you've been very clever manipulating my posts in the way that you have, but the quotations that were made a couple of days ago proving that I was not talking about a "Muslim gene", show that you are nothing but an out and out liar. The fact that I didn't address the question every single time was because it was irrelevant and when I did address it with denial (early on and at least three times) and the answer was ignored, shows you are just making another pathetic attempt to sidetrack this topic.

What a craven slowpoke. The first time you addressed the question of a religious gene head on was on page 6, when you made the remark of a total u-turn. Until then, every time you were asked whether you thought a Muslim gene existed, your stupid response was to copy and paste a web link. I then asked how your copy and paste job proved the existence of a Muslim gene.

Like you did with the question of the historical mentions of Jesus outside scripture, it was only later, stricken with the cowardice and mendacity that you have embodied on NL, that you tweaked your argument and made the dishonest claim that my views represent a total u-turn. Like I have asked before, a total u-turn from what? Bloody idiot.

I would suggest that Huxley saw your posts making the ridiculous claim regarding a Muslim gene and was replying to that. Funny how you will stoop to anything, even quoting your worst enemy (an atheist) in your rush to blur the lines. Go take a look on the timing on my posts. You will see that I refuted the idea of a Muslim gene a couple of days ago. Why ask questions if you ignore the answers, cretin?

You are a dishonest cunt. You suggest Huxley saw my post? you must be a bastard. Huxley quoted your post in his comment and remarked that he had never heard of the view you were advancing before.

Huxley's comment is telling. If everybody who posted then, no matter which side of the divide they are on, was convinced you were advancing a particular view, why are you now claiming it was clear which you view you were advancing? All this shows is that you are a liar!

You are still talking bollocks about addressing the question of the Muslim gene when you only did so after tweaking your argument.

Even the biggest retard can see that I was not arguing the idea of a religous gene.Your posting of my quote with the link is manipulative. The fact that I posted a refutal of a Muslim gene and then got back on topic by posting an article that shows the "influence" of religion means what exactly? Oh yeah. It means I was right. You are a cock.

The only retard here is you. Huxley,David and I saw your comments as astonishing. You then re-emerged later with a new line, a line nobody but you can attest to, and claimed this is what you have been talking of all along.

What do you understand a ''refutal'' to mean? You must be an under-educated oik. You responded to a question about the existence of a Muslim gene with abuse and a web article about Moors.

Question:Do you believe in alchemy?
Bastage: You cock, the conversion of metal is technologically feasible, here is a link - www.conversionofmetal.com

Is that what this oik calls a refutal? It doesn't address the question and leaves any reader, whether Huxley or David, with the impression that you share the premise embodied in the question. You grammatically challenged idiot, no wonder you responded to my comment about Stalin not pursuing religious ideals with the most idiotic comment

Statement: Stalin is not known to have pursued capitalist ideals
Bastage: Rubbish, Stalin was pursuing capitalists

This unlettered creep should quickly return his school fees to the mediocre university he attended, probably one of these former polytechnics.

There is absolutely nowhere in this thread where I use the words "religious gene", "gene for religion" or "Muslim gene" except to refute their existence or describe them as irrelevant to this topic. If, as you claim, I was arguing their corner, don't you think I would have at least argued in their favour using those words at least once!!!!?Huh? According to you, the fact that as long ago as a couple of days ago I told you that a "religion gene" was not an issue here proves that I was arguing for the idea, beggars belief. Logic shows you to be a complete and utter liar.
Let's look at that logic.

Hang on, what led Huxley, David and I to think you were advancing a particular viewpoint? Hang on, any chance it might be because of your own posts? You have accused Huxley of selective blindness and accused David and I of dishonesty. Newsflash: If you and you alone made that judgement, it is either you are a liar or an uncommunicative prick

You told me a couple of days ago? Again, you only embarked on the new line after David and Huxley had stopped posting. Until then, you were asked the same question about a Muslim gene ad nauseam, from David and I with Huxley expressing astonishment, and you glibly carried on with a copy and paste job,idiot.

Again you have completely and utterly taken my words out of context. I stated that everything was a result of religion in reply to a list of actions given in a question. But again, if it suits your purposes to lie, cheat, swindle and twist, it's no matter as you only screw up later down the line for all to see. Saying that though, I would argue with you that everything in society is influenced by religion in some way. I have no problem arguing that corner although I'm sure you'll find a way to twist the subject.

You mendacious slowpoke. You said, complete with capitalised and bolded letters, that ''everything'' is as a result of religion. Now you are claiming it is out of context, stupid Arrow. The context argument is the famous refuge of the lying scoundrel.

Your reply was in reponse to a post were I raised the hypothetical scenario of an atheist inventing a HIV vaccine. We were examining the causative factors of human behaviour, not a restricted list of actions ,you stupid liar.

If everything is a result of religion, you have contradicted yourself because every genetic make up, without exception, would be as a result of religion. You can't make p your mind where you stand because like the lying piece of feaces that you embody, you keep tweaking your argument as you go along with reckless regard for honesty.

This lying toad who tried to pull a wool over my eye after constantly claiming there were no historical mentions of Jesus outside scripture. . . you have form, dickhead. This is not the first time.

So how about finally answering the million dollar question that I have asked you eight times and which you have deliberately avoided? Now that you claim to understand the context in which the question has been asked, any refusal just shows that you are continuing to run scared - whatever bulllshit and bluff you would like to use to claim otherwise.Has religion had an influence on genes?

What about this lying sack of sh*t ending the moronic red herring he is deploying, which has no relevance whatsoever with the topic, and being honest for the first time?

You have resorted to the tact of blithering infantile vermin asking repeatedly the same question, a question you only adopted belatedly. Who are you fooling. . .you are an unbridled slowpoke

4Play, you get time. You're still responding to that son of a shoe?

You are a deceitful liar. Nothing but a dishonest swine.

So abundantly clear it was that nobody else but you, neither David nor Huxley nor I, thought you were advancing a view other than the existence of a religious gene.

I specifically pointed out many times I was not speaking about a religion gene.
Even with all of the shit that you have put above, there is nothing that proves otherwise. Now I don't know how your logic works, but if a certain topic is being discussed it would be easy to show that I was talking about it. If I was discussing a religion gene, in my dozens of posts rather than the influence of religion, it would be a piece of piss to prove it, wouldn't it? Yet, strangely, nowhere in my words do you see the words "religious gene", "Muslim gene" or "gene for religion", except when I say (early on) that it is not what the topic is about and that it is irrelevant.

Let me point it out to you again. It's there for all to see, very early on in my posts:

"My statement was "Religion influenced genes". Nothing else. If you want to argue about a "Muslim gene" go and argue somewhere else you slowpoke.""

Anyone can go back and look at it. It is irrefutable proof that you are a total and utter liar.


The only reason you kept bringing it up was so that you could sidetrack the topic yet again. To claim otherwise, to cherry pick my posts just proves you are nothing but the lying sack of shit you proclaim me to be. I wonder - if you act like this in real life, I'l bet you don't have many friends. Nobody likes a liar.

What about this lying sack of sh*t ending the moronic red herring he is deploying, which has no relevance whatsoever with the topic, and being honest for the first time?

The question "Have genes influenced religion" is a red herring? You pathetic creep. It is the statement and the question that I have been stating since you joined this thread with your idiocy. And now it's irrelevant?
I have not dodged a single one of your questions. Even the pathetic "Muslim gene" question was answered (strange that it was answered early yet you still claim it was the topic). But you? You refuse to answer the same question that has been put to you a dozen times.

Do you know why? Let me tell you.
Because if you answer "No", it proves you to be an illogical, worthless piece of shit.
If you answer "Yes" you know that far from being a "red herring" you will have shown that everything that you have posted in this thread is worthless crap.


You are nothing but a total and utter waste of time 4-Skin. You don't have the mental capacity to debate. You can only lie, cheat and twist. I welcome anyone to go back and read through this whole thread properly and make their own judgement. Although you can burble all you like about the total and utter lie that I was talking about a religion gene, only a cretin or verminous scumbag like you would make that claim as it is abundantly clear that it is not so.

I'm done with dealing with you. Talking to you in this thread has been like scraping a turd off my shoe. Distasteful. It's got to be done, but once the shoe is clean and the turd is gone, it's easy enough to move on.

And 4 play is supposed to come back and still not answer.
( I know you will insult me now just make it short and sweet )

It is all they have in their armoury, Chris.
Constructive argument is not their ally because they're always beaten by logic.
Take for example, 4-Skin's claim that he and DavidDylan thought this was all about a "muslim gene". David Dylan obviously didn't. He answered the question "has religion influenced genes?" by blaming it on migration pattern. As he said:

I answered and even used font size 28 to emphasize it in case you were also visually impaired.

Read through his posts and you will see that he isn't refuting a "muslim gene". He's refuting the idea that "religion influenced genes". Of course, now he's jumped on his fallen comrade's coat-tails but go back and look and it's plain to see. He stands condemned by his own words. The fact that he hid behind the pisspoor statement and that he tried to blind everyone with false science regarding genes whilst totally avoiding the subject of chromosomes shows what a jerk-off he really is. But not only does it show that he's a jerk-off, it shows that he knew exactly what the subject was about. Unlike 4-Skin, he even had the gall to argue with the National Geographic quote. Here's another example. He knows what the subject is and even uses Huxley's "watering down" quote for his argument. He even calls it "very important".

3. Here is an important comment Huxley (who is no friend of christians) made yesterday - The campaigns of Ghenghis khan left ist mark right across the Asian continent. His genes and those of his soldier are still traceable in people living today from China to the hills of Istanbul.  Does this also mean that warfare has a direct impact/influence on genetics.  I mean warfare and NOT the indirect consequences of warfare, which tends to "redistribute" populations.

So it's abundantly clear that we can discard any claim that DavidDylan makes about his thinking this was about a "muslim gene". We can also discard any attempt by 4-Skin to drag David Dylan and Huxley into his shoddy argument. It's laughable that 4-Skin keeps quoting his question about a Muslim gene and then my link as if it gives his argument some credibility. Here is what I quoted from the link immediately after I posted it.

"An international team of scientists has uncovered striking evidence that mass conversions to Catholicism by Sephardic Jews and Muslims took place in the 15th and 16th centuries in Spain and Portugal. The research was carried out by a team led by Professor Mark Jobling of Leicester University and Francesc Calafell of the Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona. They found that 20 per cent of men in Spain and Portugal today still have distinctive Sephardic Jewish ancestry while 11 per cent have DNA that reflects Moorish ancestors."

Religion had an influence on genetics here. One ethnic group was assimilated into another.

Note that I don't say there is a "muslim gene"? Why would I? The article is not stating anything about a unique Muslim gene. It is stating that religion had an "influence on genes". The very words I used in my first reply to 4-Skin and the very words I have used dozens and dozens and dozens of times in this thread.
In his dipshit reply to me he even quoted and emboldened the words "Religion had an influence on genetics here."

The plain truth is that 4-Skin knew he was getting screwed on the subject of "Religion influenced genes", so his only way out was to try to smokescreen with a Muslim gene. He then introduced it to the topic and even when I told him it wasn't what I was referring to, still pushed it forward. As I've said, you'll notice the only time I ever mention it is to refute it's presence in this thread. His eight refusals to answer the question "Has religion influenced genes" also shows that he knew exactly what the topic was about. Otherwise, why not simply answer it? If the subject is about a "Muslim gene" as he claims, an answer to that question would not be an admission that a "Muslim gene" exists. He had nothing to lose with an answer either way if I was arguing on a "Muslim gene", but as I was arguing about the "influence of religion" he was well aware that any answer he gave would screw him. Hence his blatant refusal to answer the question (which as I stated, DavidDylan did answer) eight times. His repeated refusal to answer the question proves he knew exactly what the topic was and proves him a liar yet again.

I will post those refutals again:

This was all about religion having an influence on genetic make-up and now you're burbling that it doesn't prove that there's a "gene for religion". Whoever suggested that there was a gene for religion!!!

Do I really have to go back and copy and paste my claims that religion has influenced genetics? Not once have I mentioned a "gene for religion".

My statement was "Religion influenced genes". Nothing else. If you want to argue about a "Muslim gene" go and argue somewhere else you slowpoke.

We're back to the "Muslim gene" game again aren't we? Tell me just what the feck that has to do with the topic? I've never suggested for one moment that there are unique genetic make-ups. How many times do you want me to refute it before you'll stop asking the question? I know for a fact that Palestinians share a gene with Jews. They had a common bond before the former's conversion to Islam. So why the feck would I suggest otherwise?

His argument that I "never saw" his two comments regarding "Muslim genes" is utterly irrelevant. As you can see, I had already told him that I was arguing about "influence" and as you can see from my last quote, I was finding it irksome that 4-Skin was continually trying to smokescreen with the "Muslim gene" argument.





Like I said, 4-Skin is only attempting the same piss-poor tactic that he's tried everywhere else once his ass is beaten into the ground - resorting to smokescreens, insults and lies. "Oh. The subject was about something else. You suck!!!". Illogical, irrational lies.
I guess that sums up not only the slowpoke himself but also his brand of Christianity.

I found this particularly amusing from 4-Skin once he decided to go on the "Bastage was always talking about a Muslim gene" crusade.

He came back in the middle of the night with a new spin. That what he actually means is a that a person's genes is influenced by religion in so far as that at some point, events inspired by religion affected the choice of partners in procreation.

Unfortunately for him? My very first post on the topic of religion and genes!!!

Our genetic make-up is influenced by religion. Tribes adopted religions. They grew stronger and usurped the less well organised. Their genes spread. Why do you think the stereo-type of the Jew with the hook nose exists. Don't Muslims marry other Muslims? Do Christians normally marry Muslims? Doesn't that have an influence on genetic make-up?

Irrefutable proof of my consistency and 4-Skin's lies.

See you get power bastage, I have been following this thread from the beginning and have been waiting for his answer, we all know that blurring lines is the best they can do to throw everyone off track.
They will hold on to anything including grammatical errors.
I don't take em seriously abeg if you are done with them I need to ask you about Horus.


(ok guys you can insult me, remember I am already a Arrow, an slowpoke and many others so hehehehe, just make it short and sweet.)

I specifically pointed out many times I was not speaking about a religion gene.

This craven liar is still at. Of course you did, on bloody page 6! After I spent 2 pages, from 4 to 5, asking on at least 9 occasions, whether you believe in a religious gene. You must be from a dysfunctional background with a culture of self-deceit.

Until then, David,Huxley and I were astounded by your pseudo-science. Like the craven prick that you embody, your new line came after falsely accusing me of a total u-turn, and that was from page 6. Prior to that, your usual response was copy and paste.

If you don't understand English and can barely communicate, the congenital cause of your excremental brain has nothing to do with your interlocutors. Face it, you are either just an slowpoke or a craven liar, or God forbid, a combination of both.

Even with all of the shit that you have put above, there is nothing that proves otherwise. Now I don't know how your logic works, but if a certain topic is being discussed it would be easy to show that I was talking about it. If I was discussing a religion gene, in my dozens of posts rather than the influence of religion, it would be a piece of piss to prove it, wouldn't it? Yet, strangely, nowhere in my words do you see the words "religious gene", "Muslim gene" or "gene for religion", except when I say (early on) that it is not what the topic is about and that it is irrelevant.

I don't know how your retarded brain works, but if one asks you on at least 9 occasions, why you think your copy and paste material proves the existence of a religious gene, especially if all the other posters on the thread think you are engaging in voodoo science, it should tell you that no matter what you think you are communicating, your incoherence is creating another impression entirely.

This is nothing but a complete and utter red herring from you. I came into the thread on page 4 pertaining to the question of Stalin's life influence. Tell me, how does the question of a probable religion inspired influence on Stalin's genetic make up shed light on the subject of the causative factors behind Stalin's behaviour?

Let me point it out to you again. It's there for all to see, very early on in my posts:
"My statement was "Religion influenced genes". Nothing else. If you want to argue about a "Muslim gene" go and argue somewhere else you slowpoke.""
Anyone can go back and look at it. It is irrefutable proof that you are a total and utter liar.

You odious liar. The above enclosed quote was from page 6. Page 6 was the genesis of the tweak on your argument. We have been debating from page 4, after at least 9 questions on the subject of a religious gene, you came back in page 6 with a new garb and false accusations of a total u-turn. Total u-turn from what, I may ask?

Here is a 3 page argument and the only evidence you have of ''refuting'' the Muslim gene is page 6, bloody idiot! Why didn't you refute it when I asked you 9 times whether such a gene existed? Early on indeed! You must be bred to lie.

The only reason you kept bringing it up was so that you could sidetrack the topic yet again. To claim otherwise, to cherry pick my posts just proves you are nothing but the lying sack of shit you proclaim me to be. I wonder - if you act like this in real life, I'l bet you don't have many friends. Nobody likes a liar.

The only reason I kept bringing it up? What a colossal slowpoke. . . .I've been putting the same question to you from the very first page I joined the thread. If you disagreed with the premise of the question, one answer will suffice, no. Instead, this grammatically challenged mooncalf proceeds on an inane copy and paste job only to re-emerge on page 6, when everyonelse has left to trot out a new line, inbred Arrow.

The question "Have genes influenced religion" is a red herring? You pathetic creep. It is the statement and the question that I have been stating since you joined this thread with your idiocy. And now it's irrelevant?
I have not dodged a single one of your questions. Even the pathetic "Muslim gene" question was answered (strange that it was answered early yet you still claim it was the topic). But you? You refuse to answer the same question that has been put to you a dozen times.

Look at this idiot, the question is irrelevant. Why so? I introduced the question of genes in relation to Stalin and Mao, principally, why did they act the way they did? You said religion would have created them. I said there are other factors involved and genes is one of them. You said everything is as a result of religion, I disputed that by referrence to genetic make ups.

How does the probable influence on mating choices by religion shed any form of light on why Stalin acted the way he did? This red herring you have invented, a la contemporaneity when it came to the historical mentions of Jesus, does not wash. Take your lying scum of existence to where it came from.

When your bovine brain got round to answering the question of Muslim gene, in page 6 and after the use of the magic words 'gene for religion', you suddenly proclaimed that your red herring was the paramount issue, in what way exactly? Perhaps, in the cretinous existence you were brought up in, such a moot issue sheds light on Stalin's behaviour.

After page 6, you took up the toga of a blithering infantile stricken by a compulsive need to put forward an inane question that you never for one moment prior to page 6, for 2 bloody pages in an entire night, saw fit to ask in a crass and craven attempt to change the substance.

You are nothing but a total and utter waste of time 4-Skin.

Look at this self-contradicting slowpoke. Are you also schizophrenic for I seem to recall that you have invested time and effort in one of the most cowardly and hilarious attempts I have seen on NL to save face, a bloody dysfunctional idiot.

You don't have the mental capacity to debate. You can only lie, cheat and twist. I welcome anyone to go back and read through this whole thread properly and make their own judgement. Although you can burble all you like about the total and utter lie that I was talking about a religion gene, only a cretin or verminous scumbag like you would make that claim as it is abundantly clear that it is not so.

Either Huxley, David and I are all cretins or you, a paid up member of the oik society is the one indisputable oaf on this thread. Your one supporter, the grammatically challenged Arrow called Chris, hasn't even seen the need to testify to what you were claiming.

Where you not the lying swine that said on page 6 that I claimed that there is no connection between genes and religion? I challenged you to produce one such quote, this lying fecal existence chose the path of infantilism.

Where do you stand? Everything is as a result of religion, every genetic make up or is it now a case that in some cases, religion was an influence in some people's genetic make up. This befuddled dysfunctional lying piece of excrement can't make up his oik brain where he stands.

I'm done with dealing with you. Talking to you in this thread has been like scraping a turd off my shoe. Distasteful. It's got to be done, but once the shoe is clean and the turd is gone, it's easy enough to move on.

Dishonesty comes easy to you. Last debate, no historical mentions of Jesus outside scripture, you said. A few posts later, the bastard re-emerges with an insertion of the issue of contemporaneity. I knew your ways, keep that to the dysfunctional cesspit of mendacious existence you emerged from. Lying scum.

Chrisbenogor:

And 4 play is supposed to come back and still not answer.
( I know you will insult me now just make it short and sweet )

wetin be ur own,comot mouth for diaaa matter,afterall d day wey 4play face u,u no get mouth,u begin ask for peace,now wey bastard abi na bastage don enter u wan begin put mouth

The plain truth is that 4-Skin knew he was getting screwed on the subject of "Religion influenced genes", so his only way out was to try to smokescreen with a Muslim gene. He then introduced it to the topic and even when I told him it wasn't what I was referring to, still pushed it forward. As I've said, you'll notice the only time I ever mention it is to refute it's presence in this thread. His eight refusals to answer the question "Has religion influenced genes" also shows that he knew exactly what the topic was about. Otherwise, why not simply answer it? If the subject is about a "Muslim gene" as he claims, an answer to that question would not be an admission that a "Muslim gene" exists. He had nothing to lose with an answer either way if I was arguing on a "Muslim gene", but as I was arguing about the "influence of religion" he was well aware that any answer he gave would screw him. Hence his blatant refusal to answer the question (which as I stated, DavidDylan did answer) eight times. His repeated refusal to answer the question proves he knew exactly what the topic was and proves him a liar yet again.
I will post those refutals again:

Plain truth? You wouldn't know the truth if it was standing right in front of your lying degenerate self. Lets see, I ''introduced'' a subject belatedly, eventhough I had been asking questions, at least 9 times, on same subject from page 4? To lie may be pretenatural to you but it verges on self-harm when you seem to indulge in self-deceit.

Can you explain in simple English, why the red herring, has religion influenced genes, first asked on page 6, is relevant to the debate? So relevant that you only saw fit to ask it after embarking on your lying charade? Never did you ask that question before, page 5 - nada, page 4 - zilch. All of a sudden, mirabile dictu, this question is suddenly the core issue. This self-assured bumpkin can't explain why it is relevant and why he never saw fit to ask this purpotedly primary question until his belated exhibition of hare brained mendacity.

unfortunately for him? My very first post on the topic of religion and genes!!!
Our genetic make-up is influenced by religion. Tribes adopted religions. They grew stronger and usurped the less well organised. Their genes spread. Why do you think the stereo-type of the Jew with the hook nose exists. Don't Muslims marry other Muslims? Do Christians normally marry Muslims? Doesn't that have an influence on genetic make-up?
Irrefutable proof of my consistency and 4-Skin's lies.

So irrefutable that everyone - Huxley, David and I - looked at your posts and came to a different conclusion. Nobody knows where you stand, I doubt you know yourself because the toxic combination of fraudulent lies and incoherence that you steep yourself in won't allow you any semblance of consistency or cogency.

A few pages ago, everything is as a result of religion . That must include every scientific breathrough, every genetic make up, every inch of your lying existence. Subsequently, it becomes a question of in some cases, religion has some influence on genes. Bloody hell, can't this lying scum maintain a semblance of consistency over the course of a couple of days?

Chrisbenogor:

See you get power bastage, I have been following this thread from the beginning and have been waiting for his answer, we all know that blurring lines is the best they can do to throw everyone off track.
They will hold on to anything including grammatical errors.
I don't take em seriously abeg if you are done with them I need to ask you about Horus.
(ok guys you can insult me, remember I am already a Arrow, an slowpoke and many others so hehehehe, just make it short and sweet.)

Look at this inbred riff-raff. One has to mock your grammar for you will think a degenerate bumpkin like you who assumes the mantle of the brainy would have basic grasp of grammar.

With no iota of logic or sapience in your posts, my advice still stands, let the progenitors of this excremental-brain pay for inflicting on humanity, the cesspit of imbecility called Chris.

So irrefutable that everyone - Huxley, David and I - looked at your posts and came to a different conclusion.

Bit by bit your house of sand is getting washed away by the sea. Or maybe I should say that your lies are getting washed away by the truth.
This is all I need from the rant above to prove you a liar yet again.

For the past couple of posts you've been burbling that Huxley, DavidDylan and yourself all stated that I was talking about a Muslim gene. Now you admit that it's only you that saw it as an argument for a religion gene.


Let me just reiterate what I've been saying all along.

Religion has had an influence on genes.
The invasions of the Moors and the Crusaders were both undertaken because of religious beliefs. In both instances, the invaders left behind chromosomes which left their marks on the indigenous populations.

End of story.

Bastage:

Bit by bit your house of sand is getting washed away by the sea. Or maybe I should say that your lies are getting washed away by the truth.
This is all I need from the rant above to prove you a liar yet again.
For the past couple of posts you've been burbling that Huxley, DavidDylan and yourself all stated that I was talking about a Muslim gene. Now you admit that it's only you that saw it as an argument for a religion gene.

Look at this lying fecal existence. This retarded oik is obviously grammatically challenged. How does ''David,Huxley and I'' constitute only me? Is this not proof that you are an slowpoke?

I am now "David,Huxley and I". . . . .this slowpoke is hopelessly confused.

Let me just reiterate what I've been saying all along.Religion has had an influence on genes.
The invasions of the Moors and the Crusaders were both undertaken because of religious beliefs. In both instances, the invaders left behind chromosomes which left their marks on the indigenous populations.
End of story.

What an idiot. Why did David,Huxley and I come to a different conclusion as to the view you were advancing? You are an uncompromising oaf.

Explain how the above sheds light on the Stalin issue, in regards to which the issues of genes was introduced, idiot.

Explain how the above sheds light on the Stalin issue, in regards to which the issues of genes was introduced, idiot.

It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Stalin. Not once have I suggested his actions were undertaken because of his genes. I stated that religion was an influence on him through society. You were the one that bought up the subject of genes.

And then got your ass kicked.

Lol 4play you can do better than that na no dey fall my hand oh
I stand corrected that you are a bitter dude and I enjoy seeing you rant like a madman.
@busybein
Make the guy go sidon jo, this dude is a baby , there is nothing he will reply to without insulting the person. I only said he was throwing smoke screens and the next thing he did na all the many insult wey you dey see oh.
I agree he has a good command of english, but he is an immature person and I stand to be corrected, even his next post will be filled with insults too but me I no get wahala, I don't like exchanging words thats for women to do, if we dey see face to face that na different story.
Summary, He is a bitter bloody buffoon and he can 'GO AND DIE!' hehehehe