RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (100) < ... 40 41 42 43 44 [45] 46 47 48 49 50 ... >   
  Topic: FL "Debate Thread", READ FIRST POST BEFORE PARTICIPATING PLZ< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,15:23   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,22:17)
Wikipedia, SD?  You have multiple statements from well known published OOL evolutionists that show that abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution, and the best you can do is a generalized Wiki snip that doesn't even address nor refute each particular expert's statement?

Well, if you were honest enough, you would go to that wiki page and follow the links. But that's too much to ask to a lying, crawling piece of crap like yourself.

but I won't expect you to undestand any basic concept anymore. when you are stupid enough to not see the difference between a general "evolutionary history" and the "theory of evolution", there's not much more we can do.

Sir Yodel Elf, you are a twat!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,15:25   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,15:14)
So, where's SLP?  Did he respond yet?  Judging from CM's attempt to cover for him, apparently not.

Git on here, SLP.  Answer the previous question.  Ohhh, and answer the OTHER question too while you're here:
 
Quote
 
Quote
Notice that evolutionists posi the very same driving force for both prebiotic evolution and postbiotic evolution---natural selection.

Hence prebiotic evolution is part and parcel of the overall theory of evolution.
******
Good luck answering that one, SLP.  But honestly, you can't answer it, and you know it.  Oro simply made clear that abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution.

You said you answered this one.  Show me again exactly how you did?

******

Oh, and you dropped this one too.  Completely.
 
Quote
Nobel laureate Christian De Duve summarized the plenary session:  "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories..." (2009, Nmgirl's post)
Care to address what he said, SLP?  I don't think you can.  I think you major in minors because you're not able to handle the fact that multiple experts, past and present, really do connect evolution and abiogenesis even down to 2009.  You whine and wring your hands, and try to shoot the messenger because you're too limp to deal with the message, is that it?

Don't try to hide behind CM or other low-octaners on this one.  Git on here yourself if you dare, and answer to these realities.  Ready yet?

FL, I answered them.

Again, the problem is not that Abiogenesis and Evolution are one in the same, but the impreciseness of the English language is at fault.

So, as I've and at least one other person has answered the evolution of "evolution", you could read what we stated.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,15:26   

I've been sick the last few days, so my apologies if this has been covered.

Compare this reasoning:

1. FL claims that faith in Christianity is incompatible with a holding of evolution.

2. There are many examples of Christians who hold to evolution.  (For one, the pope.)

3. But FL says he can't understand how they get around his five big incompatibilities, so insists that these examples don't count.

To this reasoning:

1. AB claims that no hand-held device can be both a calculator and a communications device.

2. There are many cell phones that are both calculators and communications devices.

2. But AB says he can't understand how a cell phone works, so insists that these examples don't count.

It is certainly true that AB doesn't understand how cell phones work.  No one understands all the details of how cell phones work: the antenna engineers don't know the details of the user interface, the keypad designer doesn't understand how the transmission frequencies are swapped back and forth, those who design the transducers don't know how to design the hinges.

The fact that AB doesn't understand how a cell phone works is irrelevant to the fact that cell phones work.

Similarly, the fact that FL doesn't understand how the pope both believes in Christianity and accepts evolution is irrelevant to the fact that he does.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,15:29   

Got some more for you SLP.  

Quote
In the mid-1800's, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living things.  But evolution also operates in the inanimate world....


Right there, you see Oro providing a rationale that clearly connects abiogenesis to evolution, makes them inseparable in fact.  And look at it again, SLP, he's not just referring to "a concept" only, but actual evolution.  He does this same thing when he says "organic molecules evolved by natural selection".  He's talking actuality, NOT abstract concept.

So you got it wrong there too.  Care to respond?  Are you able to?

  
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,15:39   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,15:29)
Got some more for you SLP.  

 
Quote
In the mid-1800's, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living things.  But evolution also operates in the inanimate world....


Right there, you see Oro providing a rationale that clearly connects abiogenesis to evolution, makes them inseparable in fact.  And look at it again, SLP, he's not just referring to "a concept" only, but actual evolution.  He does this same thing when he says "organic molecules evolved by natural selection".  He's talking actuality, NOT abstract concept.

So you got it wrong there too.  Care to respond?  Are you able to?

The word "evolution," like most words, has multiple meanings.  Just this morning I gave a lecture on time development in quantum mechanics.  That simply means how quantal things change with time ... no connection to biological evolution is implied.  Certainly no connection to evolution by natural selection.

Similarly, we often talk about the evolution of stars, or of galaxies, or of radiation.  No one should think that this means stellar evolution is part of biological evolution, or that it proceeds by natural selection (it doesn't.)

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,15:49   

Quote
3. But FL says he can't understand how they get around his five big incompatibilities

Uhhh, Dan, they DON'T get around them.  In fact, the Pope re-affirms the first three of them (you saw his quotations yourself) and is silent on the final two.  Agreed?

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,15:50   

Quote
For example, what does abiogenesis have to with whether evolution and chrisitanity are incompitable, or whatever it was you said?

Ask SLP.  This was his idea, not mine.  Go jump on him.  Me, I'm just finishing what he apparently wanted to start.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,15:58   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,22:49)
Quote
3. But FL says he can't understand how they get around his five big incompatibilities

Uhhh, Dan, they DON'T get around them.  In fact, the Pope re-affirms the first three of them (you saw his quotations yourself) and is silent on the final two.  Agreed?

One last time, Yodel Elf:

NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR BFFs!!! The simple fact that a large number of christians find their faith compatible with evolution makes you WRONG!

If you are too stupid to understand that, please GTF out of here!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,16:16   

Quote
NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR BFFs!!!

Hmmm.  Judging from your current stress level, I'd say that at YOU care about those incompatibilities, and  quite a bit!!!!  Heh!!

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,16:21   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,13:49)
Uhhh, Dan, they DON'T get around them.  In fact, the Pope re-affirms the first three of them (you saw his quotations yourself) and is silent on the final two.  Agreed?

No, you have shown no such thing. All I've seen you show is a failure to understand the basic principles of science and logic, combined with a taste for tortured, illogical interpretations of quotes from various sources.

The fact is that god, as commonly defined, can do anything. This includes guiding evolution in such a way that it appears perfectly mechanistic. No tortured parsing of descriptions of evolution will change this.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,16:21   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,23:16)
Quote
NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR BFFs!!!

Hmmm.  Judging from your current stress level, I'd say that at YOU care about those incompatibilities, and  quite a bit!!!!  Heh!!

You are the one elevating my stress level. Your inhability to grasp even the most basic of concepts is a testimony to dumbfuckery everywhere.

You are a troll of the worst kind: a preaching troll. go proselytise somewhere else, or move on to the next subject...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,16:26   

Evasion: Ranging from outright refusal to deal with topics to subtler methods of ignoring, misdirecting or distracting.
Cherry-picking: Selectively addressing issues.

Transfer: Projecting positive or negative qualities (praise or blame) of an idea or action to another in order to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. Ggenerally used to transfer blame and disapproval from one side of a dispute to another.
Eliciting disapproval: When an audience is led to believe that undesirable, subversive, or contemptible groups  support an idea or action, audience members might be influenced to change their position.
Stereotyping or Labeling: This technique attempts to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target audience finds undesirable.  
Scapegoating: Assigning blame to an individual or group that isn't really responsible, distracting from the actual guilt of responsible parties.
Appeal to fear: Seeks to build support by instilling fear

Glittering generalities: Appealing to emotionally-loaded notions such as love of God or country, desire for peace, freedom, etc. The words and phrases suggest different things to different people, but their connotation is useful to the propagandist.
Intentional vagueness: The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application.
Rationalization: Using favorable generalities to rationalize questionable acts or beliefs. Vague or neutral phrases are often used to justify such actions or beliefs.
Oversimplification: Favorable generalities are used to provide simple answers to complex  problems/topics.

Common man: This approach attempts to convince the audience that the propagandist's positions reflect the "common sense of the average people."
Testimonial: Quotations, in or out of context (quotemines), cited to support or reject a given idea, action, program, or personality. The reputation or the role (expert, respected public figure, etc.) of the individual giving the statement is exploited. The testimonial places the official sanction of a respected person or authority on a propaganda message. This is done in an effort to cause the target audience to identify itself with the authority or to accept the authority's opinions and beliefs as its own. See also:
Appeal to authority: Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position idea, argument, or course of action.

Virtue words: These are words in the value system of the target audience which tend to produce a positive image when attached to a person or issue. God, love, happiness, etc.
Slogans: A brief phrase that may include labeling and stereotyping. Good slogans are self-perpetuating memes.


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Propaganda
http://science.jrank.org/pages....da.html
http://www.historians.org/Project....da8.htm

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,16:34   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,15:50)
Me, I'm just finishing what he apparently wanted to start.

Do you think nobody notices the pattern of what you "choose to finish" and what you ignore?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Henry J



Posts: 4112
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,16:38   

Quote
Floyd believes that evolutionary theory and Christian doctrine are incompatible because:

1. Christian doctrine specifies that God is the necessary and sufficient explanation for biological organisms.  Evolutionary theory does not require God as the necessary and sufficient explanation.

2. Christian doctrine specifies that God chose to create the universe and mankind.  Evolutionary theory denies that God chose to create the universe and mankind.

3. Christian doctrine specifies that God created man in His own image.  Evolutionary theory denies that God created man in His own image.

4. Christian doctrine specifies that death did not occur before man.  Evolutionary theory requires that death existed before man.

5. Christian doctrine specifies that God is a loving, and all-powerful God.  Evolutionary theory implies otherwise, since the evolutionary process involves gratuitous pain and suffering.


Number 1 uses the tacit assumption that God couldn't or wouldn't use evolution as the method. Christianity as a whole is not dependent on that assumption. So that one is taken care of.

Number 2 is answered by the answer to number 1.

Number 3 uses the tacit assumptions that "image" means physical and that God has a physical form. Christianity as a whole is not dependent on either of these, let alone both. So that one's out.

Number 4 assumes that "death before man" wouldn't exist if it weren't for evolution, but fossilized remains of animals have been as old as a half billion years. That fact doesn't depend on evolution, and contradicting it would contradict geology and physics as well as evolution. Fortunately, Christianity as a whole does not deny those things.

Number 5 is answered by the answer to number 4.

All done.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,16:47   

that's 3 responses to all five BFFs and Floyd has yet to respond to any of them.

Two of them, he has said, "I'll post those in a bit."  Still waiting.

Someone wake me up when we get to teaching ID in science class.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,16:55   

Quote
Someone wake me up when we get to teaching ID in science class.

You were not even able to supply documentation for the specific claim you yourself provided.  Have a nice nap dude, you earned it.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,17:00   

Looks like SLP is active this afternoon in another forum, and in no hurry to visit this one, so that frees me up to focus on CM who wants to pray for me and save my soul and whatnot (you so silly sometimes. CM!!!)

  
Henry J



Posts: 4112
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,17:05   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 14 2009,15:47)
that's 3 responses to all five BFFs and Floyd has yet to respond to any of them.

Two of them, he has said, "I'll post those in a bit."  Still waiting.

Someone wake me up when we get to teaching ID in science class.

Teaching I.D.:

Something(s) somehow did something(s) at some time(s) at some place(s).

There ya go.

All done. :p

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,17:15   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,16:55)
Quote
Someone wake me up when we get to teaching ID in science class.

You were not even able to supply documentation for the specific claim you yourself provided.  Have a nice nap dude, you earned it.

The fact that you choose not to recognize a valid and true response, is not my problem.  I can't help it if you don't understand logic, evidence, or science.

You would have failed my science class miserably... because you refuse to learn.

--------------
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: Oct. 14 2009,17:17   

it's been 12 days now

Quote
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?


do you have no answer?

--------------
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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,17:29   

Quote
The fact is that god, as commonly defined, can do anything. This includes guiding evolution in such a way that it appears perfectly mechanistic.

So you have God "guiding evolution" but at the same time, making it look like evolution is "a completely mindless process" (EB3), therefore making the situation look as if he's trying to deceive us humans.
 
And since God's "guiding evolution", he must NECESSARILY also be guiding those cruel and sadistic aspects of evolution also---a gazillion years of "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw".  All that evolutionary bloodsport just to evolve the first humans.

Good job Reed.  Got some good incompatibilities there, thanks!

(Rosenhouse was right:  reconciling Christianity and evolution is NOT as easy at theistic evolutionists--or their secular homies, for that matter--try to make it sound.)

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,17:35   

Tell me one thing Floyd.  What is one difference we would expect to see if God was and if he was not guiding evolution?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,17:36   

Quote
I can't help it if you don't understand logic, evidence, or science.

However, I DO understand that you said this:
 
Quote
Cause, I think the others here have shown just as many quotes as you have that counter your argument.

After which you were sincerely asked,  
 
Quote
Really?   Please document that claim.

And I understand that the rrequested documentation wasn't provided.   All done, yes?     :)

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,17:42   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,17:36)
Quote
I can't help it if you don't understand logic, evidence, or science.

However, I DO understand that you said this:
 
Quote
Cause, I think the others here have shown just as many quotes as you have that counter your argument.

After which you were sincerely asked,  
   
Quote
Really?   Please document that claim.

And I understand that the rrequested documentation wasn't provided.   All done, yes?     :)

Nope, I provided you two quotes and a someone else provided a list of 13,000 (was it?) that refute your entire arguement.

Again, it's not my fault if you can't understand it.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,17:48   

Well, enough of this crap, right?

the ToE doesn't require god(s), in any way. I, as an atheist, am totally satisfied with this. And the ToE works very well without god(s).

But the ToE doesn't deny god(s) either. It doesn't adress the matter. Christians can definitely reconcile their faith with evolution. Each christian can make his/her own idea about the role of god(s) regarding evolution. And this is none of your damn business

See? ToE is so elegant it can actually fullfil anyone's needs. except for the terminally endoctrinated, to the point where their brain cannot process reality anymore. There is no elegance whatsoever in blind dogma.

You are weak in many ways, Yodel Elf, and should be thankful that at least CM is praying for you. If I was a believer, I wouldn't even bother!




EDIT: feel free to replace "christian" with "jew", "muslim", "zoroastrist", "venerialist", "Mythraesist"...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,18:03   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,17:29)
 
Quote
The fact is that god, as commonly defined, can do anything. This includes guiding evolution in such a way that it appears perfectly mechanistic.

So you have God "guiding evolution" but at the same time, making it look like evolution is "a completely mindless process" (EB3), therefore making the situation look as if he's trying to deceive us humans.
 
And since God's "guiding evolution", he must NECESSARILY also be guiding those cruel and sadistic aspects of evolution also---a gazillion years of "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw".  All that evolutionary bloodsport just to evolve the first humans.

Good job Reed.  Got some good incompatibilities there, thanks!

(Rosenhouse was right:  reconciling Christianity and evolution is NOT as easy at theistic evolutionists--or their secular homies, for that matter--try to make it sound.)

(1) Your YEC god is far more deceptive -- FAR, FAR more.
(2) Nature is both filled with competition and cooperation at various levels, however, ID-proponent Michael Behe agrees with you that things like malaria and so forth make God look evil. In fact, he seems to think that God is at least part evil.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,18:05   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,15:29)

So you have God "guiding evolution" but at the same time, making it look like evolution is "a completely mindless process" (EB3), therefore making the situation look as if he's trying to deceive us humans.

Not necessarily. Maybe he only wants the ones who are smart enough to figure it out. It's not like he doesn't have a history of "testing" people. Or maybe the whole thing is a divinely inspired metaphor. Or maybe god is just a sick fuck who gets off on killing and lying.
   
Quote

And since God's "guiding evolution", he must NECESSARILY also be guiding those cruel and sadistic aspects of evolution also---a gazillion years of "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw".  All that evolutionary bloodsport just to evolve the first humans.

It's hard to see how that's different from all the other stuff he supposedly did in your interpretation. Millions of years of death is incompatible with Christianity, but killing all but two (or seven or whatever) of everything on earth, just because humans were screwing up isn't ?

Or punishing all every living creature due to Adam and Eve fucking up ?

LOL.

But that is all beside the point. The fossil record shows that those millions of years of slaughter did happen, before humans existed, regardless of whether evolution is the source of the diversity of life on earth.  The only way to get around this is to claim that god is deliberately deceiving us in a last-tuesdayish fashion. Yet you apparently deny a deceptive god. Once again, your problem isn't evolution, it's reality. Your particular interpretation of the bible isn't compatible with reality. Compared to this, the theological quibbles of reconciling some interpretation of the bible with evolution are minor.

Finally, notice that you didn't actually address the objection I raised. You claimed that various quotes from "evolutionists" showed that god is excluded from evolution, yet you didn't actually deny that the definition of god makes this a logical contradiction.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,18:14   

Some insights about god(s) (although definitely the christian and jewish one):

Quote
Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Ahaha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is he doing? He's laughin' His sick, fuckin' ass off! He's a tight-ass! He's a SADIST! He's an absentee landlord! Worship that? NEVER!


Quote
God is a 12 years old with an ant farm!


All these quotes are taken from a movie: The Devil's Advocate. They are a creation, and yet, they echo some rightfull feelings about the god(s) you are worshipping, Yodel Elf, if you belive in the litteracy of the bible...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Constant Mews



Posts: 323
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,18:15   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,15:49)
Quote
3. But FL says he can't understand how they get around his five big incompatibilities

Uhhh, Dan, they DON'T get around them.  In fact, the Pope re-affirms the first three of them (you saw his quotations yourself) and is silent on the final two.  Agreed?

Of course we get around them.  I have shown you why they are not "incompatibles" at all.

The fact that I exist - a devout Christian and a scientist who accepts evolution - is proof you are wrong, Floyd.

Deal with it.  Or run away, as you are doing now.

  
Constant Mews



Posts: 323
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2009,18:16   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,17:00)
Looks like SLP is active this afternoon in another forum, and in no hurry to visit this one, so that frees me up to focus on CM who wants to pray for me and save my soul and whatnot (you so silly sometimes. CM!!!)

I wish to save your soul since you are damned for lying.  That's simple.

  
  2975 replies since Sep. 12 2009,22:15 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (100) < ... 40 41 42 43 44 [45] 46 47 48 49 50 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]