RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (527) < ... 136 137 138 139 140 [141] 142 143 144 145 146 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,16:16   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 17 2015,14:03)
Quote
7
daveSAugust 17, 2015 at 7:51 am
BA77,
Quote
Actually common ancestry is not a “given”, it is an empirically unsupported materialistic assumption that Darwinists take for granted as if it were a empirically supported “given”.
Behe, Denton, several ID advocates here, and virtually all mainstream scientists accept common ancestry, so it’s not just a “materialistic assumption”.

I don’t want to be rude, but I won’t be responding to the rest of your posts in this thread.


who in the world actually Does read BatShit77?

Quote
Who Reads BatShit77?


Well, In my humble opinion...
1.  People who live & love the philosophy of The Marquis de Sade (Hi Gordo!)
2.  People being tortured.
3.  Ba77's Mother.

So, as you can see he has Uncommonly Deep appeal.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 1180
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,17:11   

Y'all'll have to trust me on this one if you didn't see it, but Barry briefly upped (lowered?) his tone to name Eigenstate a "goddamned fascist pig" in a comment that has now been replaced on his latest abortion themed thread. Mind you, Eigenstate's comment was bound to incite the regulars.
Anyone get a screenshot?

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,17:13   

His sponsor must get hit by a lot of it....poor bastard.

That said, his sponsor might be his enabler - in that case fuck him.

  
Kantian Naturalist



Posts: 72
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,17:42   

Arrington's latest screed accuses Eigenstate of "the fallacy of false analogy."

Anyone up for pointing out that the entire design argument is one big fallacy of false analogy?

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,17:56   

Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ Aug. 17 2015,17:42)
Arrington's latest screed accuses Eigenstate of "the fallacy of false analogy."

Anyone up for pointing out that the entire design argument is one big fallacy of false analogy?

I would but Arrington, "that goddamned fascist pig" banned me again.

  
Kantian Naturalist



Posts: 72
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,18:09   

Someone should also point that O'Leary's latest find is all smoke and mirrors -- Barnham is an emergentist! Apparently O'Leary didn't get Arrington's memo that emergentism is bullshit!

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,21:13   

Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ Aug. 17 2015,17:42)
Arrington's latest screed accuses Eigenstate of "the fallacy of false analogy."

Anyone up for pointing out that the entire design argument is one big fallacy of false analogy?

Quote
DNA_JockAugust 17, 2015 at 7:53 pm
What an interesting fallacy.
Can I try?

1. Artifacts and lifeforms are similar in respect to properties a and b.
2. Artifacts require an artificer.
3. Therefore, lifeforms probably require an artificer also.

Cool.


--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,22:01   

1. Artifacts were built by somebody or something. (usually something other than itself)

2. Life forms were built by somebody or something. (usually by a cell that was made by its parent or parents)

Therefore?

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2015,00:55   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 17 2015,08:03)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 17 2015,05:54)
How to tell when your degree is a PhDumb:*                  
Quote
Why I think a transcendent Creator would make computer simulations of consciousness impossible

An interesting question for Intelligent Design proponents to ponder at this point is: supposing that the universe was designed by a Being Who wished to make His existence scientifically knowable to any intelligent life-forms living within the cosmos, and suppose that this Being was not only intelligent but also transcendent, how would He design the universe in such a way as to prevent human beings (and any other intelligent life-forms that might exist in outer space) from drawing the wrong inference about the nature of the Designer, and conceiving of Him as merely super-human (like the Greek and Roman gods of antiquity), rather than transcendent?

Apparently an intelligent designer couldn't just appear (possibly on a pillar of fire),  introduce himself, do a few miracles, make a few non-obvious but accurate predictions about the future - you know, do some God type stuff, but do it often enough so most people have seen Him in action and also do it in front of the newsreel cameras occasionally.  That would keep me from drawing any wrong conclusions.  It would certainly be more convincing than appearing before an occasional lone goatherd and leaving him with no evidence beyond the word of a lying goatherd.

Ah, yes, but the Babel Fish argument shows that doing this would destroy God.

So in other words, if God was suicidal, he would make it impossible to simulate intelligence on a computer, thus giving humanity proof of His existence.

PhDb

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2015,02:38   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 18 2015,08:55)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 17 2015,08:03)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 17 2015,05:54)
How to tell when your degree is a PhDumb:*                  
Quote
Why I think a transcendent Creator would make computer simulations of consciousness impossible

An interesting question for Intelligent Design proponents to ponder at this point is: supposing that the universe was designed by a Being Who wished to make His existence scientifically knowable to any intelligent life-forms living within the cosmos, and suppose that this Being was not only intelligent but also transcendent, how would He design the universe in such a way as to prevent human beings (and any other intelligent life-forms that might exist in outer space) from drawing the wrong inference about the nature of the Designer, and conceiving of Him as merely super-human (like the Greek and Roman gods of antiquity), rather than transcendent?

Apparently an intelligent designer couldn't just appear (possibly on a pillar of fire),  introduce himself, do a few miracles, make a few non-obvious but accurate predictions about the future - you know, do some God type stuff, but do it often enough so most people have seen Him in action and also do it in front of the newsreel cameras occasionally.  That would keep me from drawing any wrong conclusions.  It would certainly be more convincing than appearing before an occasional lone goatherd and leaving him with no evidence beyond the word of a lying goatherd.

Ah, yes, but the Babel Fish argument shows that doing this would destroy God.

So in other words, if God was suicidal, he would make it impossible to simulate intelligence on a computer, thus giving humanity proof of His existence.

PhDb

Omnipotence isn't what it used to be.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2015,02:42   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 18 2015,00:55)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 17 2015,08:03)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 17 2015,05:54)
How to tell when your degree is a PhDumb:*                  
Quote
Why I think a transcendent Creator would make computer simulations of consciousness impossible

An interesting question for Intelligent Design proponents to ponder at this point is: supposing that the universe was designed by a Being Who wished to make His existence scientifically knowable to any intelligent life-forms living within the cosmos, and suppose that this Being was not only intelligent but also transcendent, how would He design the universe in such a way as to prevent human beings (and any other intelligent life-forms that might exist in outer space) from drawing the wrong inference about the nature of the Designer, and conceiving of Him as merely super-human (like the Greek and Roman gods of antiquity), rather than transcendent?

Apparently an intelligent designer couldn't just appear (possibly on a pillar of fire),  introduce himself, do a few miracles, make a few non-obvious but accurate predictions about the future - you know, do some God type stuff, but do it often enough so most people have seen Him in action and also do it in front of the newsreel cameras occasionally.  That would keep me from drawing any wrong conclusions.  It would certainly be more convincing than appearing before an occasional lone goatherd and leaving him with no evidence beyond the word of a lying goatherd.

Ah, yes, but the Babel Fish argument shows that doing this would destroy God.

So in other words, if God was suicidal, he would make it impossible to simulate intelligence on a computer, thus giving humanity proof of His existence.

PhDb

There you go. Perhaps UD is His suicide note.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2015,07:39   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 18 2015,02:42)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 18 2015,00:55)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 17 2015,08:03)
     
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 17 2015,05:54)
How to tell when your degree is a PhDumb:*                      
Quote
Why I think a transcendent Creator would make computer simulations of consciousness impossible

An interesting question for Intelligent Design proponents to ponder at this point is: supposing that the universe was designed by a Being Who wished to make His existence scientifically knowable to any intelligent life-forms living within the cosmos, and suppose that this Being was not only intelligent but also transcendent, how would He design the universe in such a way as to prevent human beings (and any other intelligent life-forms that might exist in outer space) from drawing the wrong inference about the nature of the Designer, and conceiving of Him as merely super-human (like the Greek and Roman gods of antiquity), rather than transcendent?

Apparently an intelligent designer couldn't just appear (possibly on a pillar of fire),  introduce himself, do a few miracles, make a few non-obvious but accurate predictions about the future - you know, do some God type stuff, but do it often enough so most people have seen Him in action and also do it in front of the newsreel cameras occasionally.  That would keep me from drawing any wrong conclusions.  It would certainly be more convincing than appearing before an occasional lone goatherd and leaving him with no evidence beyond the word of a lying goatherd.

Ah, yes, but the Babel Fish argument shows that doing this would destroy God.

So in other words, if God was suicidal, he would make it impossible to simulate intelligence on a computer, thus giving humanity proof of His existence.

PhDb

There you go. Perhaps UD is His suicide note.

Cause of Death: Poisoning by KF, leading to terminal boredom.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2015,08:29   

Quote (KevinB @ Aug. 18 2015,07:39)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 18 2015,02:42)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 18 2015,00:55)
   
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 17 2015,08:03)
     
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 17 2015,05:54)
How to tell when your degree is a PhDumb:*                      
Quote
Why I think a transcendent Creator would make computer simulations of consciousness impossible

An interesting question for Intelligent Design proponents to ponder at this point is: supposing that the universe was designed by a Being Who wished to make His existence scientifically knowable to any intelligent life-forms living within the cosmos, and suppose that this Being was not only intelligent but also transcendent, how would He design the universe in such a way as to prevent human beings (and any other intelligent life-forms that might exist in outer space) from drawing the wrong inference about the nature of the Designer, and conceiving of Him as merely super-human (like the Greek and Roman gods of antiquity), rather than transcendent?

Apparently an intelligent designer couldn't just appear (possibly on a pillar of fire),  introduce himself, do a few miracles, make a few non-obvious but accurate predictions about the future - you know, do some God type stuff, but do it often enough so most people have seen Him in action and also do it in front of the newsreel cameras occasionally.  That would keep me from drawing any wrong conclusions.  It would certainly be more convincing than appearing before an occasional lone goatherd and leaving him with no evidence beyond the word of a lying goatherd.

Ah, yes, but the Babel Fish argument shows that doing this would destroy God.

So in other words, if God was suicidal, he would make it impossible to simulate intelligence on a computer, thus giving humanity proof of His existence.

PhDb

There you go. Perhaps UD is His suicide note.

Cause of Death: Poisoning by KF, leading to terminal boredom.

No, I think the cause of death was distractive red herrings dragged away from the track of truth that  led out to a caricatured strawmen soaked in (implicit or explicit) character-assassinating ad hominems and ignited to cloud, confuse, polarise and posion the atmosphere for discussion.

Leading to terminal boredom.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2015,10:25   

PS Hitler
PPS LEWONTIN
PPPS Phone numbers on Montserrat only require 4 digits for the whole population. 5 if every man woman and child had 2 phones and they still would have 90 thousand spare numbers.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2015,10:33   

Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 18 2015,10:25)
PS Hitler
PPS LEWONTIN
PPPS Phone numbers on Montserrat only require 4 digits for the whole population. 5 if every man woman and child had 2 phones and they still would have 90 thousand spare numbers.

Giving KF a conniption fit would only require one digit (in the correct orientation).

  
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2015,10:36   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Aug. 18 2015,08:29)
 
Quote (KevinB @ Aug. 18 2015,07:39)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 18 2015,02:42)
     
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 18 2015,00:55)
     
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 17 2015,08:03)
         
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 17 2015,05:54)
How to tell when your degree is a PhDumb:*                          
Quote
Why I think a transcendent Creator would make computer simulations of consciousness impossible

An interesting question for Intelligent Design proponents to ponder at this point is: supposing that the universe was designed by a Being Who wished to make His existence scientifically knowable to any intelligent life-forms living within the cosmos, and suppose that this Being was not only intelligent but also transcendent, how would He design the universe in such a way as to prevent human beings (and any other intelligent life-forms that might exist in outer space) from drawing the wrong inference about the nature of the Designer, and conceiving of Him as merely super-human (like the Greek and Roman gods of antiquity), rather than transcendent?

Apparently an intelligent designer couldn't just appear (possibly on a pillar of fire),  introduce himself, do a few miracles, make a few non-obvious but accurate predictions about the future - you know, do some God type stuff, but do it often enough so most people have seen Him in action and also do it in front of the newsreel cameras occasionally.  That would keep me from drawing any wrong conclusions.  It would certainly be more convincing than appearing before an occasional lone goatherd and leaving him with no evidence beyond the word of a lying goatherd.

Ah, yes, but the Babel Fish argument shows that doing this would destroy God.

So in other words, if God was suicidal, he would make it impossible to simulate intelligence on a computer, thus giving humanity proof of His existence.

PhDb

There you go. Perhaps UD is His suicide note.

Cause of Death: Poisoning by KF, leading to terminal boredom.

No, I think the cause of death was distractive red herrings dragged away from the track of truth that  led out to a caricatured strawmen soaked in (implicit or explicit) character-assassinating ad hominems and ignited to cloud, confuse, polarise and posion the atmosphere for discussion.

Leading to terminal boredom.

That is merely a less succinct restatement.

I did not feel that it was my task to match your pathetic level of detail.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2015,11:07   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 18 2015,01:55)
So in other words, if God was suicidal, he would make it impossible to simulate intelligence on a computer, thus giving humanity proof of His existence.

I don't think a state of extreme sobriety even exists in which my brain would be clear enough to evaluate that statement.

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2015,14:10   

I'm sure Batshit77 has a video which explains it all.  It's something to do with the earth appearing to be at the exact center of the universe when looking at the Cosmic Background Radiation, just like every other spot in the universe sees the exact same thing, thus proving that the earth's  position is unique.

And, unlike secular/atheist astronomy books, Batty 's explanation comes with music and a scripture reading.  So there!

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2015,14:50   

So we're unique just like everyone else? Who'd have thought!

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2015,15:21   

Quote (KevinB @ Aug. 18 2015,10:36)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Aug. 18 2015,08:29)
 
Quote (KevinB @ Aug. 18 2015,07:39)
   
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 18 2015,02:42)
     
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 18 2015,00:55)
       
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 17 2015,08:03)
         
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 17 2015,05:54)
How to tell when your degree is a PhDumb:*                          
Quote
Why I think a transcendent Creator would make computer simulations of consciousness impossible

An interesting question for Intelligent Design proponents to ponder at this point is: supposing that the universe was designed by a Being Who wished to make His existence scientifically knowable to any intelligent life-forms living within the cosmos, and suppose that this Being was not only intelligent but also transcendent, how would He design the universe in such a way as to prevent human beings (and any other intelligent life-forms that might exist in outer space) from drawing the wrong inference about the nature of the Designer, and conceiving of Him as merely super-human (like the Greek and Roman gods of antiquity), rather than transcendent?

Apparently an intelligent designer couldn't just appear (possibly on a pillar of fire),  introduce himself, do a few miracles, make a few non-obvious but accurate predictions about the future - you know, do some God type stuff, but do it often enough so most people have seen Him in action and also do it in front of the newsreel cameras occasionally.  That would keep me from drawing any wrong conclusions.  It would certainly be more convincing than appearing before an occasional lone goatherd and leaving him with no evidence beyond the word of a lying goatherd.

Ah, yes, but the Babel Fish argument shows that doing this would destroy God.

So in other words, if God was suicidal, he would make it impossible to simulate intelligence on a computer, thus giving humanity proof of His existence.

PhDb

There you go. Perhaps UD is His suicide note.

Cause of Death: Poisoning by KF, leading to terminal boredom.

No, I think the cause of death was distractive red herrings dragged away from the track of truth that  led out to a caricatured strawmen soaked in (implicit or explicit) character-assassinating ad hominems and ignited to cloud, confuse, polarise and posion the atmosphere for discussion.

Leading to terminal boredom.

That is merely a less succinct restatement.

I did not feel that it was my task to match your pathetic level of detail.

The sad thing is that what I provided was an exact quote from one of Mullings' comments. With him, we do not need to go far for literary gold.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2015,17:11   

Radishes and Gooseberries comment on Dense and Dreary's "Barbarians Behind the Gate screed on abortion.
Quote
Am I the only person here who finds it sad, and telling, that this thread is a bunch of men (Denyse being the only exception) discussing what women should be allowed to do? I am sure that there is another group of men who feel that they have the same god given right….could someone remind me of who they are?

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2015,18:15   

barry is no match for eigenstate.

Quote
A zygote is both fully human and full alive. Being “alive” does not make it a person — read the law, understand the philosophy and reasoning that ground the jurisprudence there. That’s not practical test for personhood. If it was, we could not stop the machines keeping a brain-dead patient’s bodily functions going, for it too is — wait for it, wise guy — alive. It’s also fully human. And yet, even the Catholic Church at the forefront of the crazy on this issue, accepts brain-death as the END OF A PERSON as legal matter, and a moral matter.

How can this be, for this living human??? Well it can be because your juvenile approach to the subject has missed the essential discriminating factors regarding personhood. I’m not saying it’s reasonable and grounded because it’s the law, but the reverse: the law is evidence of the reason and grounding of these judgments. The doesn’t accommodate religious superstitions (at least overtly!), so it’s good lens to see what you are not seeing through “dogma glasses”.
linky

   
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2015,19:44   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 18 2015,09:07)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 18 2015,01:55)
So in other words, if God was suicidal, he would make it impossible to simulate intelligence on a computer, thus giving humanity proof of His existence.

I don't think a state of extreme sobriety even exists in which my brain would be clear enough to evaluate that statement.

These guys make the Saturn Death Cult conspiracy theory seem reasonable.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2015,10:36   

that's a new one to me. and it doesn't have a wiki page. What exactly is the saturn death cult?

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2015,11:06   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 19 2015,10:36)
that's a new one to me. and it doesn't have a wiki page. What exactly is the saturn death cult?

We could tell you, but then we'd have to kill you.

Would you like to know more?

  
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2015,14:08   

PaV's posting....

How far back does Front-Loading Go?

At 13 he asserts
 
Quote
Shuffling and duplication don’t get you any new information.


Has anyone pointed this out to KF?

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2015,14:15   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 19 2015,12:06)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 19 2015,10:36)
that's a new one to me. and it doesn't have a wiki page. What exactly is the saturn death cult?

We could tell you, but then we'd have to kill you.

Would you like to know more?

why not? I had a good run.

   
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2015,15:53   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 19 2015,17:06)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 19 2015,10:36)
that's a new one to me. and it doesn't have a wiki page. What exactly is the saturn death cult?

We could tell you, but then we'd have to kill you.

Would you like to know more?

I just had a Starship Troopers flashback there....

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2015,17:11   

Possibly the stupidest thing that. Barry has ever said.

Quote
The self-evident is untestable.


But I have faith that he will shortly say something even more stupid.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2015,23:06   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 19 2015,08:36)
that's a new one to me. and it doesn't have a wiki page. What exactly is the saturn death cult?

Timecube in space. Velikovski, Von Daniken, yadda yadda....

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
  15792 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (527) < ... 136 137 138 139 140 [141] 142 143 144 145 146 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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