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... > The "I Believe In God" Thread

Pages: (25) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,19:06    IBIG Quote Really? Then post the links to the answers all of the recent questions that were posted here. Let me post the questions and you post the links. Here we go again.  A bunch of nonsensical questions whose answers WILL NEVER EXIST. Don't you get it yet IBIG?  I really don't know if you don't actually understand or if you think this is somehow a telling argument. 1) Even if you disprove evolution, it doesn't make ID (or the Bible) correct. 2) These questions are meaningless because, even we scientists know that there will never be an answer for them.  We can accept that. 3) You are a hypocrite by requiring so much more information from science than you require for your own pet notion.  Tell me again who the writer of Genesis is and when exactly he wrote it... I'll wait AND I'll continue to ask this every time you ask these nonsensical question. Quote Here are the questions again: How did bacteria evolve? Define bacteria first.  Archea or Eubacteria?  Phototrophic or heterotrophic.? Or do you really want to talk about the earliest life forms? You could at least do enough research to ask sensible questions. Quote What did bacteria evolve from? See above... which bacteria do you want to talk about? There are some 1,000,000,000 species of extant bacteria... probably 10-500 times that number of extinct species... You're going to need to learn some stuff before asking valid questions. Quote How many generations are necessary for bacteria to evolve into a completely different life form? Technically, 1... unless you don't want to talk about clines and ring species. Define 'different life form'.   There's about 400 million years between prokaryotes developing and eukaryotes developing. If we assume a generation time of 24 hours (taking into account things like harsh periods where the organisms formed endospores etc), then we're talking 400 million * 365 generations. Quote When did life go from using only photosynthesis for it’s nutrition and energy, to using other lifeforms for it’s nutrition? Who knows?  I suspect and have evidence to support that it wasn't so cut and dried as that. In fact, my guess, based on current research, is that the earliest living things were heterotrophs and photosynthesis came much later.  But they weren't eating other organisms at first either.  Think mineralvores. Quote How did all of the necessary machinery evolve at once to allow that life to be able to use other lifeforms for it’s food supply, including the ability to ingest food, digest food, and eliminate waste? This is just so pathetic a picture of what you think may have happened I don't even know where to begin.   Any organism with a cell membrane (which forms easily in prebiotic conditions) has homeostasis.  It's one of the primary functions of the cell membrane.  So again, the processes of absorption and elimination predated photosynthesis by a considerable margin.  Again, this is based on what I've read. Keep in mind that your simplistic view of things is preventing you from seeing some major issues.  For example, chemosynthesis and organisms that have lived near black smokers.  These have never, ever had a photosynthetic organism in their environment, so there's no way that a photovore came first. Again, please, at least, learn enough to ask a coherent question. Quote Post the links where every one of these questions were answered! -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,19:15    Here you go IBIG, start here.  Let me know if you have questions. Please note that these are all older than 5 years, so if you were actually interested in this topic, there's really not much excuse for not having done some reading. Gilbert, Walter (February 1986). "The RNA World". Nature 319: 618. doi:10.1038/319618a0. Joyce, G.F. (2002). "The antiquity of RNA-based evolution". Nature 418 (6894): 214–21. doi:10.1038/418214a. PMID 12110897. Hoenigsberg, H. (December 2003). "Evolution without speciation but with selection: LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor in Gilbert’s RNA world". Genetic and Molecular Research 2 (4): 366–375. PMID 15011140. http://www.funpecrp.com.br/gmr/year2003/vol4-2/gmr0070_full_text.htm. Retrieved 2008-08-30. (also available as PDF) Trevors, J. T. and Abel, D. L. (2004). "Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life". Cell Biol. Int. 28 (11): 729–39. doi:10.1016/j.cellbi.2004.06.006. PMID 15563395. Forterre, P., Benachenhou-Lahfa, N., Confalonieri, F., Duguet, M., Elie, C. and Labedan, B. (1992). "The nature of the last universal ancestor and the root of the tree of life, still open questions". BioSystems 28 (1-3): 15–32. doi:10.1016/0303-2647(92)90004-I. PMID 1337989. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

MadPanda, FCD Posts: 267 Joined: Nov. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,19:23    Quote Again, please, at least, learn enough to ask a coherent question. That may be asking too much of Biggy, Oh Cybertank. Funny how he thinks he can run in the big leagues but needn't actually do any of the work required.  'Course, it's all the more reason to apply the Cattleprod of Mockery to his fundament on a regular basis. (Granted, this is a vanishingly tiny probability...) The MadPanda, FCD -------------- "No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,20:09    Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 27 2010,19:23) Quote Again, please, at least, learn enough to ask a coherent question. That may be asking too much of Biggy, Oh Cybertank. Funny how he thinks he can run in the big leagues but needn't actually do any of the work required.  'Course, it's all the more reason to apply the Cattleprod of Mockery to his fundament on a regular basis. (Granted, this is a vanishingly tiny probability...) The MadPanda, FCD You know MP.  I think I'm beyond mocking...e xcept for Joe, he deserves it. But, I just will continue to point out that IBIG is a massive hypocrite. He's also completely clueless and doesn't even have a position. Joe, is just a jerk.  Epic moron... this is the guy who told that obligate blood eaters prefer watermelon to cantaloupe or some such. They are all cowards.  IBIG won't even pretend of have a position to defend.  Joe is too cowardly to define his pro-ID position. It's sad, but I really learn a lot carpet bombing them. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

MadPanda, FCD Posts: 267 Joined: Nov. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,20:30    Point taken. Impervious to evidence, reality, and common sense, that's our Biggy.  The worst part is, he won't ever learn, or admit a mistake, or even realize that he's a perfect argument against his precious beliefs (as your own sig points out). Guess all we can do is keep pointing out the obvious to him until he gives up and pulls a Sir Robin again. The MadPanda, FCD -------------- "No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

Stanton Posts: 266 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,21:04    Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,19:01) I don't have to answer anything. I'm not the scientist here, and I never claimed to be a scientist, but if you are convince me or anyone else that you are correct, then you would just answer the questions. If you don't answer the questions then you really come across as having no evidence. If you can't answer the simple questions that I posted, then you have just demonstrated how weak your evidence is for evolution from common descent!!! And yet, you are the one who hypocritically claims to know more about science than all of the actual scientists of the world. And you are also the one who hypocritically implies that God magically poofing the world and all of its inhabitants into existence, without any evidence whatsoever, is supposed to be more scientific and more logical than actual science.

IBelieveInGod Posts: 68 Joined: Nov. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,21:09    Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 27 2010,21:04) Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,19:01) I don't have to answer anything. I'm not the scientist here, and I never claimed to be a scientist, but if you are convince me or anyone else that you are correct, then you would just answer the questions. If you don't answer the questions then you really come across as having no evidence. If you can't answer the simple questions that I posted, then you have just demonstrated how weak your evidence is for evolution from common descent!!! And yet, you are the one who hypocritically claims to know more about science than all of the actual scientists of the world. And you are also the one who hypocritically implies that God magically poofing the world and all of its inhabitants into existence, without any evidence whatsoever, is supposed to be more scientific and more logical than actual science. Yet your assumptions are no more scientific then my belief in a Creator.

Stanton Posts: 266 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,21:13    Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,21:09) Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 27 2010,21:04) Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,19:01) I don't have to answer anything. I'm not the scientist here, and I never claimed to be a scientist, but if you are convince me or anyone else that you are correct, then you would just answer the questions. If you don't answer the questions then you really come across as having no evidence. If you can't answer the simple questions that I posted, then you have just demonstrated how weak your evidence is for evolution from common descent!!! And yet, you are the one who hypocritically claims to know more about science than all of the actual scientists of the world. And you are also the one who hypocritically implies that God magically poofing the world and all of its inhabitants into existence, without any evidence whatsoever, is supposed to be more scientific and more logical than actual science. Yet your assumptions are no more scientific then my belief in a Creator. Why is basing assumptions according to current scientific knowledge not scientific? Why do you insist on saying that your belief in God is supposed to trump science? How come you refuse to explain why saying God magically poofed everything into existence is supposed to be more scientific and more logical than actual science?

MadPanda, FCD Posts: 267 Joined: Nov. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,21:16    Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,21:09) Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,19:01) Yet your assumptions are no more scientific then my belief in a Creator. Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,19:01) Yet your assumptions are no more scientific then my belief in a Creator. This is a bald assertion without evidence: it may be rejected out of hand as nonsensical.  Insert any given deity for 'creator' and the utter absurdity of this statement becomes obvious.  (It borders on the 'tu quoque' fallacy as well.) Why, exactly, do you think that you can say such a thing?  Be specific. Show the evidence that would give you credibility on this issue. So far, all you have demonstrated is badly mangled rhetoric and willful ignorance, to say nothing of repeated assertions about your imaginary friend.  Make an effort to avoid fallacious non-logic. The MadPanda, FCD -------------- "No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

IBelieveInGod Posts: 68 Joined: Nov. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,21:18    Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 27 2010,21:13) Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,21:09) Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 27 2010,21:04)   Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,19:01) I don't have to answer anything. I'm not the scientist here, and I never claimed to be a scientist, but if you are convince me or anyone else that you are correct, then you would just answer the questions. If you don't answer the questions then you really come across as having no evidence. If you can't answer the simple questions that I posted, then you have just demonstrated how weak your evidence is for evolution from common descent!!! And yet, you are the one who hypocritically claims to know more about science than all of the actual scientists of the world. And you are also the one who hypocritically implies that God magically poofing the world and all of its inhabitants into existence, without any evidence whatsoever, is supposed to be more scientific and more logical than actual science. Yet your assumptions are no more scientific then my belief in a Creator. Why is basing assumptions according to current scientific knowledge not scientific? Why do you insist on saying that your belief in God is supposed to trump science? How come you refuse to explain why saying God magically poofed everything into existence is supposed to be more scientific and more logical than actual science? Let me say it again. An assumption is not EVIDENCE!!!

Stanton Posts: 266 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,21:20    Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 27 2010,21:16) So far, all (IBelieve has) demonstrated is badly mangled rhetoric and willful ignorance, to say nothing of repeated assertions about your imaginary friend.  Make an effort to avoid fallacious non-logic. The MadPanda, FCD To ask that IBelieve refrain from using fallacious non-logic is an utterly impossible, implausible act tantamount to demanding that one fly to the moon in an empty tissue box.

MadPanda, FCD Posts: 267 Joined: Nov. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,21:21    Quote Let me say it again. An assumption is not EVIDENCE!!! Right.  But that's all you've ever had.  Only you call it a presumption and base it on some half-baked misunderstanding of someone else's magic book. You aren't even wrong, here. The MadPanda, FCD -------------- "No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

IBelieveInGod Posts: 68 Joined: Nov. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,21:25    You the ones who require evidence, yet when you have none your assumption is perfectly acceptable to you. An ASSUMPTION IS NOT EVIDENCE!!! That is the problem with origin science, and why I don't believe it is true science. There is no way of confirming anything, there will never be any more then assumptions, conjecture, speculation, presuppositions, etc... Your theories are built on a house of cards of assumptions stacked on assumptions:)

MadPanda, FCD Posts: 267 Joined: Nov. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,21:27    Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 27 2010,21:20) To ask that IBelieve refrain from using fallacious non-logic is an utterly impossible, implausible act tantamount to demanding that one fly to the moon in an empty tissue box. Alas, this is undoubtedly true. He can't even tell the difference between basing an assumption on available evidence (which is not only reasonable but acceptable) and the fallacious use of assumption as evidence.  He does this a lot, I've noticed: elsewhere he's demonstrated confusion between an argument based on evidence, which leads to a state of incredulity...and an argument from incredibility, which is what he uses. I'm not sure Biggy passed English Comp 101. The MadPanda, FCD -------------- "No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

Stanton Posts: 266 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,21:28    Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,21:25) You the ones who require evidence, yet when you have none your assumption is perfectly acceptable to you. An ASSUMPTION IS NOT EVIDENCE!!! That is the problem with origin science, and why I don't believe it is true science. There is no way of confirming anything, there will never be any more then assumptions, conjecture, speculation, presuppositions, etc... Your theories are built on a house of cards of assumptions stacked on assumptions:) Then how come you refuse to explain why "origin science" (sic) is less scientific than saying that God magically poofed everything into existence 10,000 years ago, even though there is no evidence for this latter statement, and plenty of evidence for Abiogenesis? How come you refuse to explain why you have the magical ability to negate evidence you don't like by pretending it doesn't exist?

Stanton Posts: 266 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,21:32    Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 27 2010,21:27) Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 27 2010,21:20) To ask that IBelieve refrain from using fallacious non-logic is an utterly impossible, implausible act tantamount to demanding that one fly to the moon in an empty tissue box. Alas, this is undoubtedly true. He can't even tell the difference between basing an assumption on available evidence (which is not only reasonable but acceptable) and the fallacious use of assumption as evidence.  He does this a lot, I've noticed: elsewhere he's demonstrated confusion between an argument based on evidence, which leads to a state of incredulity...and an argument from incredibility, which is what he uses. I'm not sure Biggy passed English Comp 101. The MadPanda, FCD One gets the impression that his inability to distinguish between making an assumption based on available evidence and making an assumption without any evidence is deliberate. As for his constant appeals to personal incredulity: they make him look like a lying hypocrite, especially whenever he denies claiming that he knows more about science than actual scientists.

MadPanda, FCD Posts: 267 Joined: Nov. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,21:33    Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,21:25) You the ones who require evidence, yet when you have none your assumption is perfectly acceptable to you. An ASSUMPTION IS NOT EVIDENCE!!! That is the problem with origin science, and why I don't believe it is true science. There is no way of confirming anything, there will never be any more then assumptions, conjecture, speculation, presuppositions, etc... Your theories are built on a house of cards of assumptions stacked on assumptions:) Failed again, Biggy. Science is not a matter of belief.  It is a matter of evidence.  You seem congenitally unable to grasp this.  This is your problem. Yes, all 'truth' in science is conditional, pending new data.  That is the greatest source of strength for science, but you seem convinced that it's a weakness.  This is your problem. You don't have anything else but empty word-games and rhetoric.  You never will.  You certainly don't have any evidence.  Now, if you were happy to stay in your own little room with your imaginary friend and play your silly little-child games, that'd be that.  Instead, you had to come out into the world, loudly proclaim that you're an idiot, and then get all upset when we treat you accordingly. Reflect, repent, and depart, or pull out the cork and stop lying. The MadPanda, FCD -------------- "No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

Stanton Posts: 266 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,21:36    Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 27 2010,21:33) Reflect, repent, and depart, or pull out the cork and stop lying. Like I said, this is physically impossible for IBelieve to do.  It would be far easier to fly to the moon in an empty tissue box than for IBelieve to stop proclaiming that he knows more about science than all of the scientists in the world (because his FAITH told him so).

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,21:52    IBIG, again, for the umpteenth time.  No, we will never know exactly what was the precursor to bacteria, but we don't have to. That's not the only thing that evolution or abiogensis hinges on. Let's go back to baby steps and see if IBIG is actually willing to learn.  You backed out the last two times IBIG.  Are you actually interested in learning this or do you just want to yell about how hard this is? Do you accept that if something is chemically possible, then it will occur?  I'm just talking about a chemical reaction.  Do you accept that (for example) hydrogen gas and oxygen gas, when in contact with an ignition source, will produce a highly exothermic chemical reaction resulting in water? In other words, do you accept chemistry (yes/no)  no equivocation.  Yes or no? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,22:16    Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,16:56) How did bacteria evolve? Please provide evidence that it evolved that way, and not your usual speculation! What did bacteria evolve from? Again provide actual evidence and not conjecture or speculation! Wait, did you actually entice this dumbfuck to post here? Why? Really? As for the origin of life, I put together a short outline. I called it A Short Outline of the Origin of Life. I started with a short discussion about why the origin of life is not an essential part of the theory of evolution. After all, Newton's theory of gravity did not need to describe the origin of matter. (Darwin even alluded to this). But, really- why invite shitdipped creationists here? Who will read the brilliant, and humorous rejoinders you will waste minutes composing. What I suggest instead is that you use your Google News to find articles about "evolution," "Darwinism," "creationism," and "intelligent design." Register over and over to the dozens of small town newspaper websites, and then with extreme care blast apart the creationist cretins. The only allowable tools are scientific data, and biblical scripture (augmented by quotations from appropriately revered dead theologians). It really is good fun. Re: bacteria, I suggest starting with two, freely available, articles; Woese, Carl 1998 “The universal ancestor” PNAS Vol. 95, Issue 12, 6854-6859, June 9 Woese, Carl 2002 “On the evolution of Cells” PNAS Vol. 99 13:8742-8747, June 25 In the 1998 article, Woese explains why this is a stupid question. I actually think he was wrong. But that does not impress many people. Edited by Dr.GH on Dec. 27 2010,20:18 -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

MadPanda, FCD Posts: 267 Joined: Nov. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,22:25    It's simple, Doc. This particular muppet-pastor (heh) basically bogged down the Bathroom Wall over on PT by posting the same stupid, boring, insipid, godbotting bullshit for something like three hundred and fifty pages worth, and now he's back after taking a brief vacation (read: licking his wounds) to spout more stupid and inane bullshit. Rather than have him foul various threads up with his troll-age, somebody (OgreMkV, I think) implored the Powers What Are (that is, didymos) to open a thread so that Biggy could throw his temper tantrums without having to worry about getting shut down for going off-topic. Obviously, he can't be arsed to stay here...let alone learn a damn thing.  (I, on the other hand, appreciate the occasional science lesson, being an interested amateur.) The MadPanda, FCD -------------- "No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2010,01:11    Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 27 2010,20:25) Rather than have him foul various threads up with his troll-age, somebody (OgreMkV, I think) implored the Powers What Are (that is, didymos) to open a thread I'm no Power around here.  Ogre, for some reason, couldn't make a thread.  I saw his request, so I did it instead. Aaaaand that rhymed (and the meter wasn't half-bad either). OK, anyway: why can I make a thread and he can't? I have no idea. -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2010,01:27    Quote (didymos @ Dec. 27 2010,23:11) OK, anyway: why can I make a thread and he can't? I have no idea. I am down as a "moderator" sort-of, and I don't know either. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Schroedinger's Dog Posts: 1692 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2010,02:33    Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 28 2010,07:27) Quote (didymos @ Dec. 27 2010,23:11) OK, anyway: why can I make a thread and he can't? I have no idea. I am down as a "moderator" sort-of, and I don't know either. Has Ogre ever asked Lou or Wes for edit privileges? I think you need it in order to start a new thread, and you have to ask for it to get it. It doesn't just "poof" into existence, ya know...* *See what I did there? -------------- "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

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2010,05:56    Quote Tell me again who the writer of Genesis is and when exactly he wrote it I wish I had a time machine and could go back to the centuries before it was written and listen to their palaver around the campfire. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2010,09:06    Quote (Quack @ Dec. 28 2010,03:56) Quote Tell me again who the writer of Genesis is and when exactly he wrote it I wish I had a time machine and could go back to the centuries before it was written and listen to their palaver around the campfire. It was probably more akin to sitting around the table in Foreman's basement. -------------- "[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

Stanton Posts: 266 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2010,10:52    Quote (Quack @ Dec. 28 2010,05:56) Quote Tell me again who the writer of Genesis is and when exactly he wrote it I wish I had a time machine and could go back to the centuries before it was written and listen to their palaver around the campfire. That would be an abominable waste of a good time machine. Why not go back to the arcane era when globular hairstyles were still in fashion, and wild bellbottoms roamed free?

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2010,22:54    Still no further babbling from IBIG.  Ah well.  The real world has reared its ugly head.  I'll still check in from time to time... mostly during the work days when I'm not insanely busy. After work and weekends will be strictly limited... besides, these idiots ore raising my heart rate too much.  I can't let go... "Someone is wrong on the internet." Sigh... CDO... it's like OCD, but the letters are in the correct order. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

MadPanda, FCD Posts: 267 Joined: Nov. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 29 2010,10:04    He can't take the heat in this here kitchen.  He can't take the heat over on PT, either, but that doesn't seem to stop him from trying. Where do they find 'em and why do they send 'em here?  You'd think he'd be happier just curling up into a ball and thnking happy thoughts about his imaginary friend, rather than trying to engage in a battle of wits with fully armed opponents. Eh bien. Too bad ignorance and stupidity don't hurt. The MadPanda, FCD -------------- "No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

Dale_Husband Posts: 118 Joined: April 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2010,02:41    Is there anyone else who suspects that Kris and IBIG are either one and the same, or know each other directly? They have both been trolling in PT for some time and have operated almost like a wrestling tag team. -------------- If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

Pages: (25) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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