- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 23 2011,21:47) hi stu Quote As I explained to you earlier, once you have finished learning something about biology but is any science not an after effect knowledge ?
just as you and me exist because we are the out come of our parents ? so now science can study us and make any assumption it would like,
and also science may be able to go retroactive ,of cause step by step, but even then the knowledge is only the effect not the cause ,the cause would a more hard thing to prove because no one as seen it ,right ?
this is why they try to reproduce in lab.s so they can prove it by their results right ?
but that as well would be an assumption not be concrete evidence ,if we push this way of thinking we may declare all things Mickey mouse,and then the world would classified by the love of their cartoon character,and groups would be formed and the bigger one would be the right one ,not because it is true but because it is supported by the most.
so it is in the scientific world ,an elsewhere
Pierre
Sorry, you're going to have to help me with this. I'm not understanding any of it, I'm afraid.Stuart
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 24 2011,10:10) That actually explains a lot about you, Stu.
Mike! Hello again!Quote Luke 10:21 At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
…I sense there is a Mark in the room…something about a dog and a bowl of soup?…or it could be Malcolm and a cat…does anyone know a Malcolm? No? Malcolm says he misses you all very much but don’t worry about the money.Quote What do you suppose the last sentence means, Stu? Do you think God is having a laugh at your expense right now like I am?
Do gods laugh? Or luff? Can you support that with scripture? I bet you can’t. The whole Judeo-christian scripture is earnest, humourless and dull. According to some, there is brilliant and subtle sarcasm in some of the books. Sarcasm is the lowest form of humour, and I can’t see it myself anyway. Would rather read Shakespeare for my Elizabethan humour.Quote I find long discussions with you to be quite boring. You are arrogant, full of yourself, and ignorant all at the same time.
Well done to stay awake long enough to reply then.Quote Let's suffice to say that you think I'm gullible for believing in an intelligent being who created all living things.
That is a simple version of it. But don’t forget I understand the power of the illusions that would lead you to that view. The illusion of design is overwhelming, until you look closely and see that actually design is about the worst “explanation” you could give for the structures and functions of living things. And anyway, religious design arguments add nothing more than the assertion of “design”. There is no explanation.Then there is the “sense of the numinous”. Well, I don’t think that is unique to believers, but it is they who invent a celestial dictator to go with it. There is no evidence to support that interpretation.
Quote And I think you're beyond brain-dead for believing that inanimate, unintelligent objects, once placed in the right environs, not only became animated, but also somehow developed intelligence where there was none before.
Your constituent molecules ARE inanimate, unintelligent objects that are placed in the correct sequence to give the impression of what we call “life”. Try and mount an argument that you are anything more than a well coordinated pile of chemicals, mostly water. That would be the “life force” argument that was really shown to be nonsense by Wohler in 1828, when he heated ammonium isocyanate, an “inanimate” material, and produced urea, something only ever seen to be produced by living animals.Quote And that this unintelligent force, called “evolution”, somehow WANTS beings to thrive and multiply.
No, natural selection doesn’t WANT anything. It is not a designer of the kind we are familiar with. It is retrospective, it is blind and purposeless, it cobbles solutions together from whatever spare parts come to hand, it “makes do” with any solution that half-works at the time. That is the nature of your body, it is not a precision machine, it is a collection of what proved good enough to allow survival and reproduction in ancestor populations. I recommend Richard Dawkins’s book The Blind Watchmaker, which explains all this brilliantly. Download an illegal pdf of it and read Ch2 on bat sonar, just to really see how all this works, and what a brilliant communicator he is, regardless of your view of his religious opinions.Quote I mean, if you take a block of wood and set it all by itself, will it eventually bring itself to life and develop intelligence for itself? Will it begin to figure out a way to multiply and survive? 
Ludicrous.
What scientific theory claims that blocks of wood will come to life of their own accord??Quote You can neither disprove any word in the Bible, nor prove your “animated intelligence came from inanimate unintelligence” theory.
All these convoluted words. What are you trying to achieve by them? Justification of your mythology? Why do you feel the need to do that? I’d suggest it is because you know, perhaps secretly, that indeed the bible does contain things that are patently untrue, and you don’t feel that secure about it. Otherwise I don’t think you would feel the need to try and justify at all. Or maybe you have some funny idea that your religion SHOULD be compatible with reality. I don’t understand why. You know how humans are made, and you know how your book of spells claims that your god made at least four named humans by very different methods, so it obviously is not compatible with what we observe. You might want to assert that magic is an explanation for anything; I already know it isn’t by definition.Quote So let's just leave it as I believe in God and you don't.
Sure, if you only ever did that, believe, then I’m sure I wouldn’t post here. But you make all sorts of half-baked claims about science, and you have this ridiculous evangelical imperative encoded in your book of nonsense, which forces a response. I’d rather you at least did not hypocritically smear the science that has given you the technology on which you are reading this, the same science that has explained natural history, and I mean really explained, not just dumped it ignorantly into a box marked “god”, which is no explanation of anything.Quote I will pick your brain on occasion a
bout certain things though, just to see in which manner you will hide. Right now, I'm wondering why apes don't know to look to where someone is pointing, when human babies and even canines do. Any idea?
I wasn’t even aware of it, to be honest. It might be as Tim described. It could be that one characteristic humans possess to a greater degree than other species is the ability to plan, to conceive of the future. Let me know if you find an explanation.Quote I also watched Nova last night, where they explained how the first fish grew legs and walked out of the ocean onto land. The narrator said something like, “This first fish came into a world full of vegetation and insects, ripe for the picking.” But that left me wondering which fish first crawled onto land and evolved into that vegetation and those insects………..BEFORE that “first fish” walked right into this paradise. Any idea on that one?
Here and here are two candidates for the ancestor of all tetrapods, including humans, that made the move to living on land. At the very least, the common ancestor we share will all other four-limbed animals looked something like these two, even if it was not exactly one of them.
Interesting question.
Stuart
Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 24 2011,04:37) Hi Stuart, Quote (Stu @ Dec. 23 2011,19:37) Stu: We don’t even know who wrote the gospels, they are anonymous. Quote Matthew was written by Levi. John was written by John. Peter's books were written by Peter.
Where does it say any of that?Quote “The salutation by the hand of me Paul.” (Col.4:18)
Huh? I’m not questioning whether Saul of Tarsus signed his letters.Quote “James (Jesus' 1/2 brother), a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.”
Where does it say the bit you added yourself in brackets? And where is there in the Book of James ANY description of what Jesus said or did, or any claim that this James, whoever he was, ever saw Jesus?Quote Here Paul tells us of Luke and Mark, two of the Gospel writers:
“Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.” (2Tm.4:11)
As I said, the gospels are anonymous, and it doesn’t say there that someone called Luke wrote Luke, etc.Quote “It seemed good to me(Luke) also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first,
to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the
certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.” (Luke 1:3-4)
What does that have to do with anything?Quote Is in NOT 'foolishness' to suggest that there is no eyewitness account?
Thanks for your reply, but it is not foolishness if your references are anything to go by. If that’s the best you have, then it is very clear that there is nothing that could be reliably called an eyewitness account of Jesus in existence.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 25 2011,00:15) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 23 2011,21:47) hi stu Quote As I explained to you earlier, once you have finished learning something about biology but is any science not an after effect knowledge ?
just as you and me exist because we are the out come of our parents ? so now science can study us and make any assumption it would like,
and also science may be able to go retroactive ,of cause step by step, but even then the knowledge is only the effect not the cause ,the cause would a more hard thing to prove because no one as seen it ,right ?
this is why they try to reproduce in lab.s so they can prove it by their results right ?
but that as well would be an assumption not be concrete evidence ,if we push this way of thinking we may declare all things Mickey mouse,and then the world would classified by the love of their cartoon character,and groups would be formed and the bigger one would be the right one ,not because it is true but because it is supported by the most.
so it is in the scientific world ,an elsewhere
Pierre
Sorry, you're going to have to help me with this. I'm not understanding any of it, I'm afraid.Stuart
stuto say it ;the cause to effect ; right
what cause a action as to be to have the effect or results expected,in a laboratory
but in nature this is done without any intervention ,and for every one of the components needed to produce something like a fish,dog,bird ,man,and also all the variations there of and plants
and then think that it all came from nothing,even better a big boom,we know that some of the volcanoes are erupting for 1000 of years if not millions of years and no one has seen any reproduction out of the chaos of lava,
Pierre
any better ?
Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 24 2011,12:44) Quote (TimothyVI @ Dec. 24 2011,16:02) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 24 2011,05:09) tim Quote If God inspired this book to guide His people, then he failed miserably Quote However I came to the conclusion that believer, on this site,
means believer in the bible, not God.this is
Pierre
I'm sorry Pierre, you missunderstood.
I do not know what a luff is.
We have no such word in the english language.Do you mean laugh?
Tim
tim
sorry my mistake Pierre
No problem.
Your command of English far exceeds my command of any other language.Tim
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 24 2011,17:11) luff/ləf/
Noun:
The edge of a fore-and-aft sail next to the mast or stay.
Verb:
Steer (a sailing vessel) nearer the wind to the point at which the sails just begin to shake: “I came aft and luffed her for the open sea”.As in, “This 40 knot wind is no luffing matter”.
Stuart
I stand corrected.Hot dang! Now I feel like a are a sailor, arrrrgh.
Tim
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 24 2011,01:16) According to some, there is brilliant and subtle sarcasm in some of the books. Sarcasm is the lowest form of humour, and I can’t see it myself anyway. Isaiah 44
14 He cut down cedars,
or perhaps took a cypress or oak.
He let it grow among the trees of the forest,
or planted a pine, and the rain made it grow.
15 It is man’s fuel for burning;
some of it he takes and warms himself,
he kindles a fire and bakes bread.
But he also fashions a god and worships it;
he makes an idol and bows down to it.
16 Half of the wood he burns in the fire;
over it he prepares his meal,
he roasts his meat and eats his fill.
He also warms himself and says,
“Ah! I am warm; I see the fire.”
17 From the rest he makes a god, his idol;
he bows down to it and worships.
He prays to it and says,
“Save me; you are my god.”
18 They know nothing, they understand nothing;
their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see,
and their minds closed so they cannot understand.
19 No one stops to think,
no one has the knowledge or understanding to say,
“Half of it I used for fuel;
I even baked bread over its coals,
I roasted meat and I ate.
Shall I make a detestable thing from what is left?
Shall I bow down to a block of wood?”If you can't see the humorous sarcasm here, then I don't know what to tell you. I roll on the floor laughing each time I read this passage. “Save me; you are my god!”
“Shall I bow down to a block of wood?” Quote (Stu @ Dec. 24 2011,01:16) No, natural selection doesn’t WANT anything. It is not a designer of the kind we are familiar with. It is retrospective, it is blind and purposeless, it cobbles solutions together from whatever spare parts come to hand, it “makes do” with any solution that half-works at the time.
This is exactly what I think someone would have to be brain-dead to believe. It is rubbish.Computer technology is one of the most astounding feats of mankind, yet you'd have us believe that the human brain, to which the best computer we've designed can't even hold a candle, somehow just happened by an unintelligent force cobbling solutions together from spare parts? Is our brain is just evolution's way of “making do”?
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 24 2011,01:16) Download an illegal pdf of it
As a Christian, I try my best to abstain from performing illegal activities.Quote (Stu @ Dec. 24 2011,01:16) What scientific theory claims that blocks of wood will come to life of their own accord??
Isn't a block of wood an inanimate object, similar to the inanimate objects you think animated themselves and created their own intelligence?Quote (Stu @ Dec. 24 2011,01:16) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) You can neither disprove any word in the Bible, nor prove your “animated intelligence came from inanimate unintelligence” theory.
All these convoluted words. What are you trying to achieve by them? Justification of your mythology?
I don't see you refuting what I said, only making excuses.Quote (Stu @ Dec. 24 2011,01:16) You know how humans are made, and you know how your book of spells claims that your god made at least four named humans by very different methods, so it obviously is not compatible with what we observe.
Scripture says that God can raise a living human being up from a rock. Sort of like your “life just happened from inanimate elements” theory, huh?
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 24 2011,01:16) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) I'm wondering why apes don't know to look to where someone is pointing, when human babies and even canines do. Any idea?
I wasn’t even aware of it, to be honest. It might be as Tim described. It could be that one characteristic humans possess to a greater degree than other species is the ability to plan, to conceive of the future. Let me know if you find an explanation.Then why would canines, who are supposedly lower on the ladder than apes, have this ability, when the apes we supposedly came from don't?
How could this ability skip OVER the species that we most directly evolved from, Stu?
My explanation is that God created dogs and humans with this ability, but not apes………..for His own good pleasure. Maybe just so some day you and I could have this conversation.
What's your explanation?
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 24 2011,01:16) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) I also watched Nova last night, where they explained how the first fish grew legs and walked out of the ocean onto land. The narrator said something like, “This first fish came into a world full of vegetation and insects, ripe for the picking.” But that left me wondering which fish first crawled onto land and evolved into that vegetation and those insects………..BEFORE that “first fish” walked right into this paradise. Any idea on that one?
Here and here are two candidates for the ancestor of all tetrapods, including humans, that made the move to living on land. At the very least, the common ancestor we share will all other four-limbed animals looked something like these two, even if it was not exactly one of them.
Yep, those guys look similar to the flat headed fish the Nova people thought was the first fish to go onto land.But you are missing my point, I fear. The Nova people said that this fish climbed out of the sea to find a lush paradise of plants and insects. My question is: Where did THOSE THINGS come from? What thing crawled out of the sea millions of years earlier and evolved INTO these plants and insects?
Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 23 2011,20:35) Hi Mike, These are the people (Atheists and Agnostics) that say 'a rock'(as in minerals) hast brought us forth,
and you already know the bunch that say it was 'a stock'(as in who died on [†] a cross (Rom.1:25)).Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth:
for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of
their trouble they will say, Arise (God), and save us. (Jeremiah 2:27)
Good post, Ed!Hey Stu, Ed has pointed out some more subtle, sarcastic humor:
Jeremiah 2
27 They say to wood, ‘You are my father,’
and to stone, ‘You gave me birth.’
They have turned their backs to me
and not their faces;
yet when they are in trouble, they say,
‘Come and save us!’
28 Where then are the gods you made for yourselves?
Let them come if they can save you
when you are in trouble!ROTFL!
Btw t8,
On the previous page, Stu's avatar is a blank square with a little red “x” in the upper left corner. I can see everyone else's though.
Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 24 2011,18:59) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 25 2011,00:15) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 23 2011,21:47) hi stu Quote As I explained to you earlier, once you have finished learning something about biology but is any science not an after effect knowledge ?
just as you and me exist because we are the out come of our parents ? so now science can study us and make any assumption it would like,
and also science may be able to go retroactive ,of cause step by step, but even then the knowledge is only the effect not the cause ,the cause would a more hard thing to prove because no one as seen it ,right ?
this is why they try to reproduce in lab.s so they can prove it by their results right ?
but that as well would be an assumption not be concrete evidence ,if we push this way of thinking we may declare all things Mickey mouse,and then the world would classified by the love of their cartoon character,and groups would be formed and the bigger one would be the right one ,not because it is true but because it is supported by the most.
so it is in the scientific world ,an elsewhere
Pierre
Sorry, you're going to have to help me with this. I'm not understanding any of it, I'm afraid.Stuart
stuto say it ;the cause to effect ; right
what cause a action as to be to have the effect or results expected,in a laboratory
but in nature this is done without any intervention ,and for every one of the components needed to produce something like a fish,dog,bird ,man,and also all the variations there of and plants
and then think that it all came from nothing,even better a big boom,we know that some of the volcanoes are erupting for 1000 of years if not millions of years and no one has seen any reproduction out of the chaos of lava,
Pierre
any better ?
No, sorry. Perhaps you could stick to one topic, then I might be able to work it out.Stuart
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 25 2011,01:10) Isaiah 44… If you can't see the humorous sarcasm here, then I don't know what to tell you.
The problem is that humour is only funny to the listener if he can relate to the sarcastic points being made. This is “in” humour for the religious. It is one religious sect poking fun at another religious sect, but at the same time being earnest about its own absurdities, certainly not in a self-deprecating way. The writer of Isaiah is taking the mickey out of someone who would worship an idol, but he would seriously claim something more absurd than that, to worship a being that cannot be seen at all. And it’s too long and windy to be wit. I’ll stick with Shakespeare, I think.Quote No, natural selection doesn’t WANT anything. It is not a designer of the kind we are familiar with. It is retrospective, it is blind and purposeless, it cobbles solutions together from whatever spare parts come to hand, it “makes do” with any solution that half-works at the time. This is exactly what I think someone would have to be brain-dead to believe. It is rubbish.
Exactly what is rubbish about it? Do you not find reality meets your prejudices the way you need them to?Computer technology is one of the most astounding feats of mankind, yet you'd have us believe that the human brain, to which the best computer we've designed can't even hold a candle, somehow just happened by an unintelligent force cobbling solutions together from spare parts? Is our brain is just evolution's way of “making do”?
[/quote]
This is t8’s false analogy of computers. Computers are designed, human brains aren’t. This is not a point of interesting discussion, it is just incorrect to say that brains are designed, they are the product of natural selection. If you have nothing to say about that, then in my opinion you have nothing to say. If you can prove it’s wrong, then go for it. But if all you have is an inability to believe it, or a prior commitment to a conspiracy theory of Celestial Friends, then I don’t think you have anything interesting to say. It is not as if you have ever explained how human brains came to exist, and science has explained that in a way completely consistent with the evidence.Quote Isn't a block of wood an inanimate object, similar to the inanimate objects you think animated themselves and created their own intelligence?
Is that your answer to the question “What scientific theory claims that blocks of wood will come to life of their own accord?? If so, how is it an answer?Quote Scripture says that God can raise a living human being up from a rock. Sort of like your “life just happened from inanimate elements” theory, huh?
No, making something by design is very different to the non-design that is natural selection.But don’t forget that biology claims that humans are produced by fertilisation of an egg followed by embryonic development in a uterus. Your scriptures have humans made by magic from divine breathing into dirt; by magic from a rib; the usual way; and by the magic of Cain’s wife appearing without comment (unless you believe in Preadamites and other such waffle).
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 25 2011,01:20) Then why would canines, who are supposedly lower on the ladder than apes, have this ability, when the apes we supposedly came from don't? How could this ability skip OVER the species that we most directly evolved from, Stu?
What ladder? What do you mean by lower? Here’s a question for you: which types of living species would you say are “most evolved”?And another, more directly related to your question above: Why are there moles that have eyes that don’t work?
Quote My explanation is that God created dogs and humans with this ability, but not apes………..for His own good pleasure. Maybe just so some day you and I could have this conversation.
We can have the conversation now. This is not an explanation you yourself should respect. If you went to the doctor and he told you your abdominal pain was caused by appendicitis, and that appendicitis is caused because god did this to you for his own good pleasure, you would find that inadequate as an explanation, I hope. You might even be skeptical of his abilities and looking for another doctor at that point.So why did you even try the same thing on me?
Stuart
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 25 2011,01:37) BTW T8, On the previous page, Stu's avatar is a blank square with a little red “x” in the upper left corner. I can see everyone else's though.
Oh Mike,Stuart has stated many times to T8 and others, you really believe donkeys can talk, well with your comments I fully believe they can type to.
The God you believe in is a fool, and only takes the foolish with him. You would not even be able to phantom the truth, for it would ruin your comfortable “Paul” zone.
You are the one that persecuted Nick for his doings you have proceeded him by ten fold.
At least Nick believed fully, you on the other hand have no grace about you whatsoever. It seems when Stuart brings something to the table you cannot answer and you coward into a corner with no fight in you.
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 24 2011,19:29) Computers are designed, human brains aren’t. This is not a point of interesting discussion, it is just incorrect to say that brains are designed, they are the product of natural selection. If you can prove it’s wrong, then go for it. But if all you have is an inability to believe it, or a prior commitment to a conspiracy theory of Celestial Friends, then I don’t think you have anything interesting to say.
And this is why discoursing with you gets boring, Stu. I say God CREATED man and his brain exactly the way He wanted it to be. You assert that brains aren't designed. Then you tell me to prove you wrong, yet cry when I try to have you prove a negative.Quote (Stu @ Dec. 24 2011,19:29) Quote (mikeboll64]Isn't a block of wood an inanimate object @ similar to the inanimate objects you think animated themselves and created their own intelligence?<!–QuoteEnd) “What scientific theory claims that blocks of wood will come to life of their own accord??[/i] If so, how is it an answer?
Here's another example of you hiding from the question.Stu, do YOU PERSONALLY believe that an unintelligent, inanimate block of wood can bring life and intelligence into itself? YES or NO?
If not, then why are you SOOOOOO certain that other unintelligent, inanimate things brought life and intelligence into themselves?
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 24 2011,19:29) mikeboll,64 wrote:Scripture says that God can raise a living human being up from a rock. Sort of like your “life just happened from inanimate elements” theory, huh?
No, making something by design is very different to the non-design that is natural selection.
And yet another! It is okay in your mind that NOTHING caused life from inanimate objects, but strange that a being much more intelligent than us could do it.Quote (Stu @ Dec. 24 2011,19:29) unless you believe in Preadamites
I do. You can read all about it in my thread “Was Adam truly the first man ever?”But this is senseless to me, Stu. I've read your NON-answer about the apes and the pointing. You are an EXPERT in diversionary tactics. Where is my genuine answer to the question? Nowhere.
And you never even responded to why the FIRST fish walked out of the ocean into a paradise already filled with trees and insects.
Get back to me when you are able to actually defend the asinine claims made by your “Life just happened from nothing for no apparent reason” buddies.
Princess,
I am really at a loss here. I have no idea what you're talking about, as it is Stu who is cowering (not “cowarding”) into the diversion corner from the questions I'm asking. And I'm not sure how I ever persecuted Nick.
Apparently it is YOU who cannot fathom (not “phantom”) the truth here.
I think I'll chalk your whole post up to “that time of the month”. Get back to me when you've discovered the name of the Goddess who blesses and highly favors you, okay?
Until then, unless you have something OF SUBSTANCE to add to the discussion I'm having with Stu, remember that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 26 2011,02:51) Princess, I am really at a loss here. I have no idea what you're talking about, as it is Stu who is cowering (not “cowarding”) into the diversion corner from the questions I'm asking. And I'm not sure how I ever persecuted Nick.
Apparently it is YOU who cannot fathom (not “phantom”) the truth here.
I think I'll chalk your whole post up to “that time of the month”. Get back to me when you've discovered the name of the Goddess who blesses and highly favors you, okay?
Until then, unless you have something OF SUBSTANCE to add to the discussion I'm having with Stu, remember that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Mike,Like I said only fools follow a foolish God, now you just added ignorance to the qualifications of what is required from your God.
You will not even acknowledge that there are multiple stories of creation in your rule book, but try to argue the fact of design. How does that work?
You should be careful in how you see things, especially since it is your God who enjoys the flow of blood to cleanse away sins.
And yes, you boo hooed about Nick when you first came on the board, enough that Nick had enough and left. Then all of sudden you have a mods status……hum………..at bit of a Caesar in you.
By the by, there is no gender in the spirit. That is why you are at a loss and must assuredly will be for a long time.
Quote (princess @ Dec. 25 2011,10:38) You will not even acknowledge that there are multiple stories of creation in your rule book, but try to argue the fact of design. How does that work?
What are you talking about, Princess?Are you implying that the Omniscient Creator of All Things is only capable of creating things in ONE way? Why would you ever think that, foolish girl?
Quote (princess @ Dec. 25 2011,10:38) And yes, you boo hooed about Nick when you first came on the board, enough that Nick had enough and left. Then all of sudden you have a mods status……hum………..at bit of a Caesar in you.
Whoa! Talk about your conspiracy theories! Nick and I had many wonderful discussions, and I learned a lot from him. Do you have evidence that Nick resigned because of me? Do you think I petitioned to become a moderator?If I were you, I'd refrain from posting until your flow is gone and your hormones are back in check; because right now, you are making a complete fool of yourself.
Quote (princess @ Dec. 25 2011,14:07) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 25 2011,01:37) BTW T8, On the previous page, Stu's avatar is a blank square with a little red “x” in the upper left corner. I can see everyone else's though.
Oh Mike,Stuart has stated many times to T8 and others, you really believe donkeys can talk, well with your comments I fully believe they can type to.
The God you believe in is a fool, and only takes the foolish with him. You would not even be able to phantom the truth, for it would ruin your comfortable “Paul” zone.
You are the one that persecuted Nick for his doings you have proceeded him by ten fold.
At least Nick believed fully, you on the other hand have no grace about you whatsoever. It seems when Stuart brings something to the table you cannot answer and you coward into a corner with no fight in you.
Hi Princess,If you went and seen a ventriloquist, you would see sock-puppets speak.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
