RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (32) < ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... >   
  Topic: Young Cosmos, A Salvador Cordova project< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
PTET



Posts: 133
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2008,09:11   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 30 2008,11:30)
Can someone photoshop "fight club" into "tard club", please?

Quick & dirty...



There's a Fight Club stylee
font if you want.

--------------
"It’s not worth the effort to prove the obvious. Ridiculous ideas don’t deserve our time.
Even the attempt to formulate ID is a generous accommodation." - ScottAndrews

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11127
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2008,14:32   

Very nice chief, I'll have that one too. Cheers.

--------------
"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

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,06:32   

Prologue:

(I am translating from the Norwegian edition of C. G. Jung’s “Die Beziehungen zwischen dem Ich und dem Unbewussten”)

 
Quote

“As initial symptoms of his grave compulsory neurosis,  a 15 years old patient had the following dream: He is walking down an unfamiliar street. It is dark. He hears footsteps behind. He walks faster, a little frightened. The footsteps come closer and his anxiety rises. He begins to run. But the footsteps seem to be catching up with him. Finally he turns around, and he sees the Devil. Filled with fear of death he jumps up into the air and stays hanging there. This dream was repeated twice as a sign that it was of special importance.
 As we know, compulsory neurosis – by its exaggerated cautiousness and ceremonial compulsiveness not only  appears with a superficial  likeness of a moral problem, but it is also at the bottom inhumanity, criminality and evil, the integration of which the otherwise finely organized personality desperately oppose. Because of that so much needs to be done in a ceremonially “correct” manner, as it were a counterweight against  the evil lurking threateningly in the rear. After this dream the neurosis, that mainly consisted of the patient – as he expressed it – holding himself in a “provisional” or “uncontaminated” pure condition, where he “nullified” or “annulled” his contact with the world and everything that reminded of perishability by insane, over-complicated, scrupulous cleansing ceremonies and an anxious observance of numerous and exceedingly complicated rules. Even before the patient realized what hellish future awaited him, the dream showed him that for him it involved a pact with the Devil, if he wanted to return to Earth again.”


I engaged poor pal Sal in a debate on ARN about 10 years ago. I got so annoyed with his arguments that I deleted the entire thread. I sometimes have regretted that I deleted it. But now that I see how he has been busy digging – not his own grave but more like a veritable mausoleum, it doesn’t matter.

After having read this thread from the beginning up to page 10, I think I have had more than I can digest. And still there are 17 pages left. It beats Stephen King!

Quote
Mr. Christopher:
Sal appears to be a very sick man indeed.  His whole reason for being such an IDiot creationist seems to be motivated by a need to prove the bible is true and can be relied upon.  

What hell it must be to be a grown man who is so afraid of facing life standing on his own two feet that he needs magic to face it, and then spends his life trying to prove the magic is real to himself and others.

This is the hell hole of faith.  Every believer doubts at some level, this is why they hate those of us who doubt out loud.

Sal is a vile man.


It has long been clear that what motivates the creationists is their strong desire to have their faith confirmed.  Since their faith is founded not only on the bible itself, but on the premise that the bible actually is the Word of God and therefore literally true, they are suffering from doubt and uncertainty.

Came ID to their rescue offering relief. They would have been complacent and happy had not  science been doing its best to strew salt in the wounds.

Some double-thinkers are able, as they claim, to  accept science, except they believe in a young earth anyway because that is what the Bible says. With Sal it is different; he is trying to create a universe that fits his faith.

So at page 10 of this thread it struck me; he is in a position reminiscent of Jung’s miserable patient. Sal has entered in a pact with creationism to save his peace of mind. To him, conceding to the evolution of species ( and probably abiogenesis as well) as the result of natural processes is to him nothing less than the death of God. So what can he do? As said, he creates a universe corresponding to the universe he thinks is needed to keep God alive. The lesser evil to him is to twist reality, to engage in deceit and unethical behaviour like editing, modifying or just deleting arguments he don’t like. Anything goes as long as it can uphold the illusion.  He simply is blind, really blind, to his own shortcomings. He simply is incapable of viewing himself objectively. The inflated ego he displays is proof of that.

There is a saying in his beloved Bible that says it all:

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
(Matt. 7:3)

This actually is but one of many examples of how the Bible also contains truth, profound psychological insight. 20th century depth psychology calls it ‘projection’. We project the dark sides of ourselves onto other people – in an attempt to liberate ourselves. It is the scapegoat principle in action.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,08:34   

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 02 2008,07:32)
Prologue:

(I am translating from the Norwegian edition of C. G. Jung’s “Die Beziehungen zwischen dem Ich und dem Unbewussten”)...

So at page 10 of this thread it struck me; he is in a position reminiscent of Jung’s miserable patient. Sal has entered in a pact with creationism to save his peace of mind.

Interestingly, a 1988 book entitled The Mind of the Bible Believer by Edmund Cohen (Prometheus Books) presented a very detailed argument largely from a Jungian depth psychological perspective that the bible is a psychological instrument carefully crafted to create and enforce this state of mind:

"The major thesis of this work is that the Bible...is a psychological document. The claimed didactic content, so long and so bitterly debated, is incidental to the document's psychological purpose. To become bogged down in its supposed didactic content tis to cooperate with the psychological stratagems operating on the believer....

"The New Testament is nothing other than a psychological manipulation - a depth-psychotechnology - designed so to knit its people together. The psychological acumen and artfulness with which it was done is unsurpassed...It worked much too well, and continues to work absurdly long after the historical situation that called it into being has been forgotten...Whereas other religions probably do spontaneously reflect the cultures and times that have given rise to them...I contend that New Testament Christianity was, instead, deliberately contrived and field-tested over a few eventful decades. This depth-psychotechnology concealed in the New Testament - whereof the new, conservative, upstart pastors are unwittingly the restorers and new practitioners - I call the evangelical mind control system (page 4).

And so on. I haven't read it since it was published, and am not endorsing the work, but I recall the general thesis as quite congruent with your speculation regarding Sal.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,11:53   

I have had those thoughts before, of course not expressed so completely.  

But I have had misgivings.  If a conspiracy, who did it?

Is it possible that such a conspiracy could emerge from lower level entities and processes?  I began to doubt that is so.

But it sure is a convincing argument, if one doesn't consider who designed the designing of the designer?

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,12:15   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 02 2008,12:53)
I have had those thoughts before, of course not expressed so completely.  

But I have had misgivings.  If a conspiracy, who did it?

Is it possible that such a conspiracy could emerge from lower level entities and processes?  I began to doubt that is so.

But it sure is a convincing argument, if one doesn't consider who designed the designing of the designer?

It is an interesting thesis, but there is a ring of implausibility to it, as it attributes a great deal of psychological sophistication to the authors of the New Testament.

I find it more plausible that these memes were shaped into effective methods for group cohesion and suppression of doubt operating in a psychological domain by unguided selection, as discussed by Dennett in Breaking the Spell.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2304
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,02:10   

Quote
But I have had misgivings.  If a conspiracy, who did it?

I think there are three main suspects - the father, the son, an the holy ghost.

Bob

--------------
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)

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,04:19   

I am afraid we are getting off topic, so after we have dissected Sal's mind, please let us return to the Young Cosmos. But before that, just to complete the picture WRT the NT:

In "The Jesus Mysteries", authors Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy writes:      
Quote
Could it be that orthodox Christianity was a later deviation from Gnosticism and that Gnosticism was a synthesis of Judaism and the Pagan Mystery religion? This was the beginning of the Jesus Mysteries Thesis.
Boldly stated, the picture that emerged for us was as follows. We knew that most ancient Mediterranean cultures had adopted the ancient Mysteries, adapting them to their own national tastes and creating their own version of the myth of the dying and resurrecting godman. Perhaps some of the Jews had, likewise, adopted the Pagan Mysteries and created their own version of the Mysteries, which we now know as Gnosticism. Perhaps initiates of the Jewish Mysteries had adapted the potent symbolism of the OsirisDionysus myths into a myth of their own, the hero of which was the Jewish dying and resurrecting godman Jesus.
If this was so, then the Jesus story was not a biography at all but a consciously crafted vehicle for encoded spiritual teachings created by Jewish Gnostics. As in the Pagan Mysteries, initiation into the Inner Mysteries would reveal the myth's allegorical meaning. Perhaps those uninitiated into the Inner Mysteries had mistakenly come to regard the Jesus myth as historical fact and in this way Literalist Christianity had been created.

It is only to be expected that Christian apologetics strongly reject any alternative to traditional literalism, but if we accept as a fact that miracles are extremely rare - maybe even entirely impossible, we are entitled to subjecting all available evidence to the merciless light of rational thought. Simply put, if nobody was born of a virgin, walked on water, made water into wine, died, spent three days and two nights in a tomb, resurrected and flew away into heaven, then why was that story created, what does it mean?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,12:31   

That's a really good question. Perhaps a comparative approach could find examples of these within "competing" religions of the time, and determine what is culturally significant about those particulars. The "born of a virgin" was a relatively common trope and I can think of about half a dozen religions and mystery cults that employed it, but the others would be interesting to track down, too.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
stevestory



Posts: 11161
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,15:07   

AtBC
Quote
66 user(s) active in the past 15 minutes
50 guests, 16 Public Members and 0 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>stevestory >Mister DNA >Kristine >Reciprocating Bill >swbarnes2 >Mr_Christopher >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >jeannot >olegt >creeky belly >Occam's Toothbrush >Richardthughes >Albatrossity2 >Gunthernacus >Hermagoras >Venus Mousetrap


youngcosmos:

Quote
Our users have posted a total of 787 articles
We have 54 registered users
The newest registered user is Joe Smith
In total there are 2 users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 2 Guests

   
stevestory



Posts: 11161
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,15:09   

young cosmos discussion forum:

Quote

Last Post:

Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:55 am
SCheesman


Truly, ID is exploding in popularity.

   
stevestory



Posts: 11161
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,15:14   

by the way i see we've set a new record:

Quote
Most users ever online was 197 on Feb. 01 2008,12:16

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,11:04   

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 05 2008,15:14)
by the way i see we've set a new record:

Quote
Most users ever online was 197 on Feb. 01 2008,12:16

Yay Us!~  USA!  USA!  USA!

BTW - Do you buy pizza and beer for all of us if we break the 200 barrier?

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

  
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2008,09:42   

Sal's posting again.

Short version: Darwin was an evil atheist who couldn't do math, God is great, Sal still doesn't understand population genetics or Kimura and proof of creationism and/or God's existence is on its way any day now.

These parts of this post were particularly good.

Quote
Darwin was a dolt when it came to math. He couldn’t even do high school algebra. This fact seems not to mean much to Mark Chu-Carrol of the Darwinist weblog “Good math, bad math”. That’s because Chu is a Darwinophile, and he let’s his Darwinism blind him from the truth. Where is Chu’s criticism of Darwin’s math? Non-existent. This is evidence of Chu’s bias and willingness to distort the truth in order to defend Darwin.

Darwin was bad at math, and his theory is full of math contradictions.

[snip]

Kimura’s differential equations blew Darwinism out of water in molecular evolution. Darwin couldn’t solve differential equations because that requires calculus, and Darwin couldn’t even do high school algebra, much less do calculus, much less differential equations…..

[Even I can do high school algebra, and so can Bill Dembski and so can Jonathan Wells :-) ]

[snip]

Darwinism is no where near physics as a science, heck, it’s not even as good as high school algebra.


The subtlety of Sal's argument truly places him among history's great writers.

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2008,13:51   

Quote (Annyday @ Feb. 10 2008,08:42)
Sal's posting again.

Short version: Darwin was an evil atheist who couldn't do math, God is great, Sal still doesn't understand population genetics or Kimura and proof of creationism and/or God's existence is on its way any day now.

These parts of this post were particularly good.
Quote
Darwin was a dolt when it came to math. He couldn’t even do high school algebra. This fact seems not to mean much to Mark Chu-Carrol of the Darwinist weblog “Good math, bad math”. That’s because Chu is a Darwinophile, and he let’s his Darwinism blind him from the truth. Where is Chu’s criticism of Darwin’s math? Non-existent. This is evidence of Chu’s bias and willingness to distort the truth in order to defend Darwin.

Darwin was bad at math, and his theory is full of math contradictions.

[snip]

Kimura’s differential equations blew Darwinism out of water in molecular evolution. Darwin couldn’t solve differential equations because that requires calculus, and Darwin couldn’t even do high school algebra, much less do calculus, much less differential equations…..

[Even I can do high school algebra, and so can Bill Dembski and so can Jonathan Wells :-) ]

[snip]

Darwinism is no where near physics as a science, heck, it’s not even as good as high school algebra.


The subtlety of Sal's argument truly places him among history's great writers.

My apologies if you've already seen this because it made me laugh.
 
Quote
The Best Way to Avoid Failure is to Never Do Anything Worthwhile

Or at least that must be Sal Cordova's philosophy. In a couple of posts he's beaten his chest with self-important wankery, Darwin bashing, hanging equations with no explanation of their relevance, bragging about knowing algebra, and some bizarre attempt to appropriate Erwin Schrodinger to the cause of IDC and, I presume, "Advanced Creation Science". Actually making any kind of argument seems to be an alien concept to slimy ol' Sal. Seriously, this guy couldn't find his ass with both hands.


--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2008,14:52   

Well, Sal is the same fellow who declared that evolution is false because it would be impossible for the sternum to form...

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2008,15:33   

Every grad program loves to hear how their students have mastered high school algebra. Sal's professors must be so proud of him.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2008,16:13   

Quote (Chayanov @ Feb. 10 2008,14:33)
Every grad program loves to hear how their students have mastered high school algebra. Sal's professors must be so proud of him.

Darwin also didn't know

? = ?n?i,k?ikOink

and it didn't hurt him. :p

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2008,18:43   

Quote
Darwin couldn’t solve differential equations because that requires calculus, and Darwin couldn’t even do high school algebra, much less do calculus, much less differential equations

In the UK calculus and differential equations are part of high school maths. Sal needs to get around a bit more.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
stevestory



Posts: 11161
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2008,21:38   

Quote (Annyday @ Feb. 10 2008,10:42)
Quote

[snip]

Darwinism is no where near physics as a science, heck, it’s not even as good as high school algebra.


The subtlety of Sal's argument truly places him among history's great writers.

Evaluating sciences in terms of how much like physics they are is proof that you don't understand science very well. It's a pretty stupid mistake. It's like saying Wayne Gretzky wasn't any good because he doesn't shoot free throws well.

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2008,21:47   

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 10 2008,21:38)
Quote (Annyday @ Feb. 10 2008,10:42)
Quote

[snip]

Darwinism is no where near physics as a science, heck, it’s not even as good as high school algebra.


The subtlety of Sal's argument truly places him among history's great writers.

Evaluating sciences in terms of how much like physics they are is proof that you don't understand science very well. It's a pretty stupid mistake. It's like saying Wayne Gretzky wasn't any good because he doesn't shoot free throws well.

Well, he doesn't.  Not that I've seen him, but I heard about it and some Darwinist told me so.  Also, Jesus doesn't like the round ball.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
stevestory



Posts: 11161
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2008,21:51   

I trust that Salvador's classification of his posts as "Advanced Creation Science" is making everyone else laugh as hard as me.

   
Mister DNA



Posts: 466
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2008,22:22   

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 10 2008,21:51)
I trust that Salvador's classification of his posts as "Advanced Creation Science" is making everyone else laugh as hard as me.

Oh yeah. I've always understood "Advanced Creation Science" to mean that Sal has the "Stupid" knob cranked to 11.

--------------
CBEB's: The Church Burnin' Ebola Blog
Thank you, Dr. Dembski. You are without peer when it comes to The Argument Regarding Design. - vesf

    
Lou FCD



Posts: 5415
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2008,06:47   

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 10 2008,22:51)
I trust that Salvador's classification of his posts as "Advanced Creation Science" is making everyone else laugh as hard as me.

Your faith is not misplaced.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2008,13:39   

Jesus what a pseudoscientific douchebag.  Projection, shall we, Sal?

Quote
We would hardly give much thought to the suffering of rodents and maggots as we poison, mutilate, incinerate, and otherwise dispense with these creatures for our good pleasure.


Jesus what a pseudoscientific douchebag

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

  
sparc



Posts: 2008
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2008,14:04   

I was surprised that DO'L at UD missed it but luckily, one can always count on Sal Cordova. He celebrated the notorius Warda and Han paper on February 8th:
Quote
Creationist paper passes peer-review, Darwinist Endosymbiotic theory trashed
Obviously this is not enough, later he writes:
Quote
I foresaw this event.


--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2008,14:24   

Sal's gloating about God killin' atheists and proof of God's existence again.

Also: everyone Sal mentions seems to have three PhDs. Heheheh.

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2304
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2008,14:30   

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 11 2008,14:04)
I was surprised that DO'L at UD missed it but luckily, one can always count on Sal Cordova. He celebrated the notorius Warda and Han paper on February 8th:  
Quote
Creationist paper passes peer-review, Darwinist Endosymbiotic theory trashed
Obviously this is not enough, later he writes:  
Quote
I foresaw this event.

Yeah, well, he had probably read the originals.

Bob

--------------
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)

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5415
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2008,14:39   

Quote (Slimy Sal - January 2nd recipient of the 2008 UDoJ Asshole of the Year Award as quoted by sparc @ Feb. 11 2008,15:04)
I foresaw this event.

Yeah, you and Sylvia Browne, I'm sure.

You probably plagiarized it from Nostrodamus though.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2008,14:42   

Quote
I would have to disagree with the philosopher who said, this world is “the best of all possible worlds.” I would instead argue the best of possible worlds is not the one we live in, but the one where the Intelligent Designer will live eternally.


Dr Pangloss just-got-dumbar.

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

  
  948 replies since July 31 2007,08:19 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (32) < ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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