Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 4

Pages: (356) < ... 121 122 123 124 125 [126] 127 128 129 130 131 ... >

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,11:34    Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 20 2012,07:09) I think I prefer the ganging up on Newspaper comment threads.  That sounds like fun. Hitting blogs is just jumping head first into the smelly shit. These clowns are absolute crackpots.  We could probably do a 1000 words on every sentence.  And no one would read it... ever. What made UD so entertaining was the veneer of pretending to do science.  Street-corner preaching is all over teh webz, but street-corner preaching in a labcoat... -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,11:46    Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 20 2012,12:34) Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 20 2012,07:09) I think I prefer the ganging up on Newspaper comment threads.  That sounds like fun. Hitting blogs is just jumping head first into the smelly shit. These clowns are absolute crackpots.  We could probably do a 1000 words on every sentence.  And no one would read it... ever. What made UD so entertaining was the veneer of pretending to do science.  Street-corner preaching is all over teh webz, but street-corner preaching in a labcoat... agreed.  sciency-ness is critical for producing good tard.  if you just have some jackass running his mouth about what he chooses to believe and doesn't give a shit about contraindicating evidence (WJM, for instance) then you produce far far fewer LULZ per electron UD pretended to use sciency-ness as a cover for their apologetics.  it isn't hard to find other groups who do that to varying degrees but ultimately i think they all place more value on apologetics than they do sciency-ness.  the fun is in exposing that. news paper comments, are you kidding?  the newspapers i follow in places i have lived are utter cesspools and prayer gutters, might be fun for pure trolling but you are not going to get meaningful dialogue casting to those swine -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,11:55    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 20 2012,11:46) news paper comments, are you kidding?  the newspapers i follow in places i have lived are utter cesspools and prayer gutters, might be fun for pure trolling but you are not going to get meaningful dialogue casting to those swine Wait a cotton pickin' minute! Where are you trolling for tard where there *is* meaningful dialogue?  Are you holding out on us? -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,11:58    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 20 2012,11:46) but you are not going to get meaningful dialogue casting to those swine You use those words as an example of why not to visit newspaper comment threads... as compared to UD????!?!?!?!? I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. What I'm considering is the best way to get as many viewers as possible for the real science. Even UD, well, if don't count AtBC regulars, they only have a few dozen viewers probably.  Joe's blog is the same.  yes, The arguing is fun, but it's not exactly doing anything to spread the truth. That's more of what I was thinking.  get as many people as possible to at least see the evidence against their beliefs. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,12:20    Quote street-corner preaching in a labcoat Creationism in a stolen lab coat. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Amadan Posts: 1337 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,12:45    Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 20 2012,18:20) Quote street-corner preaching in a labcoat Creationism in a stolen lab coat. Test-tube theology -------------- "People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011 JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,12:47    Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 20 2012,12:58) Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 20 2012,11:46) but you are not going to get meaningful dialogue casting to those swine You use those words as an example of why not to visit newspaper comment threads... as compared to UD????!?!?!?!? I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. What I'm considering is the best way to get as many viewers as possible for the real science. Even UD, well, if don't count AtBC regulars, they only have a few dozen viewers probably.  Joe's blog is the same.  yes, The arguing is fun, but it's not exactly doing anything to spread the truth. That's more of what I was thinking.  get as many people as possible to at least see the evidence against their beliefs. oh no i don't think there has  been meaningful dialogue at UD but it does happen on the internet, rarely.  look at TSZ, for example.  real climate.  the oil drum.  now, those aren't really creationist strongholds but you will find people debating issues using *data*.  that is entertaining as far as creationists go, you can either mock them subtly or directly but they don't give a shit about whether their creationism is true.  the data don't matter.  that is most entertaining when they pretend that it does.  and thats what made UD entertaining for a while was going through the exercise of demonstrating that they actually, contrary to spoken intent, didn't give a fuck about the data so if you are looking to "Convince Creationists" I think you are S.O.L.  that is not what al gore made this bitch to do -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,12:49    Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 20 2012,12:55) Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 20 2012,11:46) news paper comments, are you kidding?  the newspapers i follow in places i have lived are utter cesspools and prayer gutters, might be fun for pure trolling but you are not going to get meaningful dialogue casting to those swine Wait a cotton pickin' minute! Where are you trolling for tard where there *is* meaningful dialogue?  Are you holding out on us? tard holes are like fuckbuddies you can't go running around sharing them with all your friends or they turn into a swamp -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,13:20    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 20 2012,12:47) Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 20 2012,12:58) Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 20 2012,11:46) but you are not going to get meaningful dialogue casting to those swine You use those words as an example of why not to visit newspaper comment threads... as compared to UD????!?!?!?!? I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. What I'm considering is the best way to get as many viewers as possible for the real science. Even UD, well, if don't count AtBC regulars, they only have a few dozen viewers probably.  Joe's blog is the same.  yes, The arguing is fun, but it's not exactly doing anything to spread the truth. That's more of what I was thinking.  get as many people as possible to at least see the evidence against their beliefs. oh no i don't think there has  been meaningful dialogue at UD but it does happen on the internet, rarely.  look at TSZ, for example.  real climate.  the oil drum.  now, those aren't really creationist strongholds but you will find people debating issues using *data*.  that is entertaining as far as creationists go, you can either mock them subtly or directly but they don't give a shit about whether their creationism is true.  the data don't matter.  that is most entertaining when they pretend that it does.  and thats what made UD entertaining for a while was going through the exercise of demonstrating that they actually, contrary to spoken intent, didn't give a fuck about the data so if you are looking to "Convince Creationists" I think you are S.O.L.  that is not what al gore made this bitch to do Nope... no one will ever convince a creationist... except when they do. But there are a lot of people who may be interested and just not know or be able to figure out the details.  We could make a real impact there. Just sayin... -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,13:37    Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 20 2012,14:20) but there are a lot of people who may be interested and just not know or be able to figure out the details.  We could make a real impact there. absolutely  agree, in principle.   in practice, not so sure that it matters.  i know that there are examples of this happening (hi Stephen!) but i think in general to the extent that someone is open to reason that their personal creationism is doomed no matter what anyone does, because such a person is curious and that is the opposite of creationism ETA by "this happening" i mean leaving creationism, or rejecting ID arguments previously held.  not that blog science wars have convinced anyone of changing anything other than their repertoire of one liners and you're mom jokes. remember, the lard works in Ms Terry S Ways Edited by Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 20 2012,14:38 -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,14:27    You have to realize that creationism is driven by two fears. The first fear is the abstract fear of eternal damnation. This fear is fueled by the teaching that it is not what you do in life that matters, but what you believe. This fear is mitigated somewhat by the actual teachings of Jesus, who mostly omitted it in favor of good works. The second fear is the concrete, visceral fear of being alienated from friends and relatives. Shunning is a powerful weapon. The authors of the Bible anticipated the allure of worldly knowledge and deal with it explicitly.  Evidence is deftly set aside. It is almost a given that evidence will undermine faith. I doubt if the percentage of believers will ever drop significantly below the current numbers. there will always be people who follow religion for its social benefits and for fear of shunning. And there will always be people who genuinely can't endure doubt and uncertainty. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,14:38    Okay, I'm guilty: I just peeked at UD to gloat over the the deafening silence - surprise: Dr Dr WAD himself came to the rescue to increase the traffic. -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,14:52    Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 20 2012,14:38) Okay, I'm guilty: I just peeked at UD to gloat over the the deafening silence - surprise: Dr Dr WAD himself came to the rescue to increase the traffic. The emperor has foreseen it. Seriously, I suspected this was preparing the way for DRDRs return. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

noncarborundum Posts: 320 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,14:58    Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 20 2012,14:27) I doubt if the percentage of believers will ever drop significantly below the current numbers. there will always be people who follow religion for its social benefits and for fear of shunning. And there will always be people who genuinely can't endure doubt and uncertainty. The current numbers where, though?  The situation in France, for example (64% atheist or agnostic, according to Harris Interactive in 2006), would be a distinct improvement over what we're seeing in the U.S. these days. -------------- "The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,15:05    I suspect the number of believers will never drop much below those numbers. The situation in France may simply reflect a reversal of social pressure, or a rebound from centuries of theocracy. Perhaps religion is associated with the monarchy. In the United States we have the opposite political history. Religion is associated with rebellion against monarchy. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

noncarborundum Posts: 320 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,15:27    Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 20 2012,15:05) I suspect the number of believers will never drop much below those numbers. The situation in France may simply reflect a reversal of social pressure, or a rebound from centuries of theocracy. Perhaps religion is associated with the monarchy. In the United States we have the opposite political history. Religion is associated with rebellion against monarchy. Are you suggesting that the current numbers are destined never to change?  They've changed in the past (compare 17th-cent. Massachusetts to today).  What makes the present day special? -------------- "The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,15:45    I think there are two things influencing those numbers. 1) The tendency for children to reject fundamentalist religion when they get out into the real world.  The other side of that coin is not very many are allowed to get out in the real world and go to Bible college instead. 2) The tendency for fundamentalists to have many more children than the norm. Which way the percentage shifts is anyone's guess -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,15:54    Quote Are you suggesting that the current numbers are destined never to change? No, I'm suggesting there are people inclined to believe and there are people inclined to be skeptical and a large chunk in the middle that will follow whatever is fashionable or demanded by their peers. I just think there will always be a sizable percentage who "believe" and who think belief is valuable in itself. Some have bumper stickers saying so. The value of "faith" (ecumenical, having no particular subject) is the stuff of vast swaths of fiction. Ever see a stage performance of Peter Pan? -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

iconofid Posts: 32 Joined: July 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,15:55    Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 20 2012,15:05) I suspect the number of believers will never drop much below those numbers. The situation in France may simply reflect a reversal of social pressure, or a rebound from centuries of theocracy. Perhaps religion is associated with the monarchy. In the United States we have the opposite political history. Religion is associated with rebellion against monarchy. The percentage of believers is dropping steadily in the U.S., and will continue to drop. Europe is about 50 years ahead on average, but that's the direction you're going. Believing Christians are already a minority in many European countries. The fundy attack on science and all their energetic politic-ing are symptoms of the demise of Christianity, not its revival.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,16:37    I'm not actually predicting church attendance numbers.  Just asserting there are people who place a positive value on faith over evidence. Some go for new age stuff, some for quack medicine, etc. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,16:45    FWIW i know people who are not intellectually equipped to address scientific propositions but adopt them as articles of faith which they use to browbeat others. which is about the same thing that religious believers do.  the problem is that it's a lot easier to get a soundbite or affirmation statement than it is to investigate the evidence for or against a hypothesis.   so i don't think that "thinking like a creationist" is going to go away, part of it is a function of identity politics and psychological machinations that are beyond the reach of reason.  but the substrate on which these thoughts are activated is likely to change. i am not absolutely sure if I would rather be surrounded by people building value judgments on the basis of successful scientific theories or on the basis of religious dictum, but at least the former is in theory adaptable -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

utidjian Posts: 185 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,16:56    Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 20 2012,12:45) Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 20 2012,18:20) Quote street-corner preaching in a labcoat Creationism in a stolen lab coat. Test-tube theology But without the testing or the tubing. -------------- Being laughed at doesn't mean you're progressing along some line. It probably just means you're saying some stupid shit -stevestory

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,17:03    There is a theistic evolution movement, and I suspect it will grow. Considerable research has been done on opinion formation. Basically, it boils down to face-to-face interaction. One value of the newspaper websites is posting book, and article citations, and website URLs to pro-science resources. Not to overwhelm some creationist, but to inform people on "our side" who could use some better information. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

dhogaza Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,18:13    Gil: Quote I’ve been given a promotion at work which will require even more time to solve problems with FEA simulations concerning an inflatable isotensoid supersonic decelerator for upcoming Mars missions. In plain english, due to budget cuts, the next mars lander will land on a glorified whoopie cushion.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,19:00    It actually seems like the best solution. I believe the two successful rovers landed that way. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,19:11    Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 20 2012,14:37) I'm not actually predicting church attendance numbers.  Just asserting there are people who place a positive value on faith over evidence. Some go for new age stuff, some for quack medicine, etc. I see more and more people (especially women) saying that they are "spiritual, not religious" or are "spiritual but not part of organized religion", in personal ads. Earlier today I saw one who said she is christian, attends church, but is "more spiritual than religious". What cracks me up are the ones who say they're spiritual, christian, attend church, are tattooed, pierced, kinky, and like death metal, and want a badboy "Master" or "Dom" or "Daddy" with lots of tattoos and piercings who will get high and drunk with them and spank them. -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,19:33    Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 20 2012,19:11) Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 20 2012,14:37) I'm not actually predicting church attendance numbers.  Just asserting there are people who place a positive value on faith over evidence. Some go for new age stuff, some for quack medicine, etc. I see more and more people (especially women) saying that they are "spiritual, not religious" or are "spiritual but not part of organized religion", in personal ads. Earlier today I saw one who said she is christian, attends church, but is "more spiritual than religious". What cracks me up are the ones who say they're spiritual, christian, attend church, are tattooed, pierced, kinky, and like death metal, and want a badboy "Master" or "Dom" or "Daddy" with lots of tattoos and piercings who will get high and drunk with them and spank them. The funniest one that I saw was a Christian Humanist. Oxymoron -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,21:09    Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 20 2012,17:33) Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 20 2012,19:11)   Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 20 2012,14:37) I'm not actually predicting church attendance numbers.  Just asserting there are people who place a positive value on faith over evidence. Some go for new age stuff, some for quack medicine, etc. I see more and more people (especially women) saying that they are "spiritual, not religious" or are "spiritual but not part of organized religion", in personal ads. Earlier today I saw one who said she is christian, attends church, but is "more spiritual than religious". What cracks me up are the ones who say they're spiritual, christian, attend church, are tattooed, pierced, kinky, and like death metal, and want a badboy "Master" or "Dom" or "Daddy" with lots of tattoos and piercings who will get high and drunk with them and spank them. The funniest one that I saw was a Christian Humanist. Oxymoron It seems that most peoples' "spiritual", "religious", or "worldview" belief systems are like a homemade food recipe. A cup of this, a spoonful of that, two of this, one of that, a dash of this, a sprinkle of that, etc., and often the recipe/ingredients for their beliefs conflict, and are subject to change for no apparent reason. Even people who attend the same church often disagree on the details of their beliefs, and a lot of people who are "spiritual" or "religious" also go for other strange stuff, like what midwifetoad mentioned, and ghosts, Bigfoot, aliens living amongst or replacing humans, alien abductions, ancient alien visitors, crystal healing, and who knows what else.   Speaking of aliens and ghosts, joe g comes to mind. I wonder if the aliens found any CSI when they 'probed' him? -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2012,21:42    Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 20 2012,21:09) Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 20 2012,17:33)   Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 20 2012,19:11)   Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 20 2012,14:37) I'm not actually predicting church attendance numbers.  Just asserting there are people who place a positive value on faith over evidence. Some go for new age stuff, some for quack medicine, etc. I see more and more people (especially women) saying that they are "spiritual, not religious" or are "spiritual but not part of organized religion", in personal ads. Earlier today I saw one who said she is christian, attends church, but is "more spiritual than religious". What cracks me up are the ones who say they're spiritual, christian, attend church, are tattooed, pierced, kinky, and like death metal, and want a badboy "Master" or "Dom" or "Daddy" with lots of tattoos and piercings who will get high and drunk with them and spank them. The funniest one that I saw was a Christian Humanist. Oxymoron It seems that most peoples' "spiritual", "religious", or "worldview" belief systems are like a homemade food recipe. A cup of this, a spoonful of that, two of this, one of that, a dash of this, a sprinkle of that, etc., and often the recipe/ingredients for their beliefs conflict, and are subject to change for no apparent reason. Even people who attend the same church often disagree on the details of their beliefs, and a lot of people who are "spiritual" or "religious" also go for other strange stuff, like what midwifetoad mentioned, and ghosts, Bigfoot, aliens living amongst or replacing humans, alien abductions, ancient alien visitors, crystal healing, and who knows what else.   Speaking of aliens and ghosts, joe g comes to mind. I wonder if the aliens found any CSI when they 'probed' him? Oh, he's complex all right.. not so specified though.  And there is little actual information. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

sledgehammer Posts: 533 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2012,01:41    Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 20 2012,10:45)   Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 20 2012,18:20)     Quote street-corner preaching in a labcoat Creationism in a stolen lab coat. Test-tube theology 2nd Law of Theodynamics: With God, All Things Are Possible, except:   naturalistic evolution      abiogenesis        evolved flagella          anthropomorphic global warming            moral atheism              etc ...                etc ...                  etc ... -------------- The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD) If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

Pages: (356) < ... 121 122 123 124 125 [126] 127 128 129 130 131 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard