- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,18:40) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 09 2010,08:57) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,06:56) Do some more creationism, t8. That is always hilarious!
Creation is the only conclusion.Nothing-ism is ridiculous and something-ism that is not intelligent-ism comes second in the ridiculous stakes.
You fail to grasp the obvious.
You know reality is something that shouldn't be ignored Stu.Creation is the only valid conclusion, even for a person who has no experience with God. But sure, you are allowed to bury your head in the sand. That is what your free will allows.
That's not proper creationism t8, that's deist navel gazing!Why SHOULDN'T there be something that just appeared?
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Thing that appear are usually brought from somewhere else
consisting of something else; do you agree with this?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Oct. 09 2010,19:37) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,18:40) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 09 2010,08:57) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,06:56) Do some more creationism, t8. That is always hilarious!
Creation is the only conclusion.Nothing-ism is ridiculous and something-ism that is not intelligent-ism comes second in the ridiculous stakes.
You fail to grasp the obvious.
You know reality is something that shouldn't be ignored Stu.Creation is the only valid conclusion, even for a person who has no experience with God. But sure, you are allowed to bury your head in the sand. That is what your free will allows.
That's not proper creationism t8, that's deist navel gazing!Why SHOULDN'T there be something that just appeared?
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Thing that appear are usually brought from somewhere else
consisting of something else; do you agree with this?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
No.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,19:57) Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 09 2010,19:37) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,18:40) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 09 2010,08:57) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,06:56) Do some more creationism, t8. That is always hilarious!
Creation is the only conclusion.Nothing-ism is ridiculous and something-ism that is not intelligent-ism comes second in the ridiculous stakes.
You fail to grasp the obvious.
You know reality is something that shouldn't be ignored Stu.Creation is the only valid conclusion, even for a person who has no experience with God. But sure, you are allowed to bury your head in the sand. That is what your free will allows.
That's not proper creationism t8, that's deist navel gazing!Why SHOULDN'T there be something that just appeared?
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Things that appear are usually brought from somewhere else
consisting of something else; do you agree with this?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
No.Stuart
Hi Stuart,Why not?
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,18:40) Why SHOULDN'T there be something that just appeared?
Sure things can appear. But for that to happen there has to be a construct that allows things to appear. There has to be something to allow this.It is silly to think there is absolutely nothing and then something just appeared and walla, we have a universe. I mean does that really need to be explained? It is obviously stupid to suggest this.
Anyone with half a brain would know that there is a lot more going on when something appears out of nothing. In other words where there is smoke, there is a fire.
If a person for example, appeared and then disappeared and appeared in a different spot in a two dimensional world, then that could be explained easily by saying that the person that appeared, and disappeared and then reappeared some distance away, could actually be a 3 dimensional person moving in a 3rd dimension world in quite a normal manner. So one side of him is in that second dimensional realm and then he moves away from it and back into it again. So it would be strange in 2 dimensional thinking and perfectly logical in the third dimension.
However, if you happened to be a 2 dimensional ignoramus, you could conclude that things just appear and disappear and things can come from nothing. But knowledge of the third dimension explains it easily. But regardless of that knowledge, the 2 dimensional ignoramus would probably say that it was all fanciful thinking to believe in a higher dimension anyway.
God is called the “Most High”. And it is not fanciful thinking to suggest that he can pretty much do anything. That his power is beyond anything we can imagine. But yes, I fully expect an ignorant reply about this post from at least one 3rd dimensional ignoramus. I wonder who that will be?
t8
Quote Sure things can appear. But for that to happen there has to be a construct that allows things to appear. There has to be something to allow this.
The construct is called space-time, and its expansion is accompanied by an increase in the amount of energy / matter observable in the universe. That is the scientific explanation. What is the christian explanation? “God created the heaven and the earth”. It is not an explanation, it is a description that contains no explanation whatever. What is more, it attributes nothing more than the creation of the earth and a solid beaten-out thing above it to its god, it does not mention the appearance of anything further away than that, apart from some waters. It is not until Genesis 1:3 that light is created. This completely contradicts Einstein and Hawking who between then have shown (and explained how) light was present in the universe before matter was. Presumably too, the earth was not in orbit around anything until the “lights” on the third day: the sun and the moon (which is not a light, and does not even look like a light when near to the position of a solar eclipse), and the essential stabilising effect of the moon on the earth’s rotation was not yet in effect.And you call real science silly.
Quote It is silly to think there is absolutely nothing and then something just appeared and walla, we have a universe. I mean does that really need to be explained? It is obviously stupid to suggest this.
I disagree. I think it would be foolhardy to assume anything in regards to the birth of the universe. What we know about it does suggest that it is a case of energy then matter appearing from a situation where there previously was only the gravitational energy of the expansion, and it is perfectly consistent with all known physical laws, and even accounting rules! What might be stupid is a religious presumption that if it is not thought to be consistent with the contents of Bronze Age religious writing then there must be something wrong with it.Quote Anyone with half a brain would know that there is a lot more going on when something appears out of nothing. In other words where there is smoke, there is a fire.
That is why you need a full brain to understand the idea.Quote If a person for example, appeared and then disappeared and appeared in a different spot in a two dimensional world, then that could be explained easily by saying that the person that appeared, and disappeared and then reappeared some distance away, could actually be a 3 dimensional person moving in a 3rd dimension world in quite a normal manner. So one side of him is in that second dimensional realm and then he moves away from it and back into it again. So it would be strange in 2 dimensional thinking and perfectly logical in the third dimension.
You don’t even need to invoke the idea of extra dimensions to explain the constant disappearance and reappearance of the particles in your own body.Quote However, if you happened to be a 2 dimensional ignoramus, you could conclude that things just appear and disappear and things can come from nothing. But knowledge of the third dimension explains it easily. But regardless of that knowledge, the 2 dimensional ignoramus would probably say that it was all fanciful thinking to believe in a higher dimension anyway.
Which does not do the honest thing and comment also on the two-faced dishonesty attributable to the two-dimensional being that claims to have knowledge of the three-dimensional world.Quote God is called the “Most High”. And it is not fanciful thinking to suggest that he can pretty much do anything. That his power is beyond anything we can imagine. But yes, I fully expect an ignorant reply about this post from at least one 3rd dimensional ignoramus. I wonder who that will be?
This god is also most violent and most smelly, by the logic of the ignoramus Anselm.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 25 2010,20:42) Common descent of life on the other hand is evidence on the predictions that any newly discovered species will use DNA to carry its genetic code because all life shares a common ancestor. No new species has ever been discovered that does not use DNA, or the related molecule RNA. Of course you could try the line “a common designer uses common design”, but are you really prepared to stand by that when the going gets tough? Chimpanzees and humans share a recent common ancestor (5 million years ago) and we know that because we can measure exactly how different their genomes are, compared with the differences with other more distantly-related species, and we find that retroviruses have left characteristic bits of their genes in the same genes in both species, but not in gorillas. Gorillas have other virus genes that are also shared by humans and chimpanzees, but there are no virus genes that are found in humans and gorillas but not chimpanzees. If there was no more evidence than that (they are called endogenous retroviruses) then the case would be closed for our common ancestry with the other great apes. Of course the evidence is far more extensive than that. How are you coping with it so far? I won't charge you for this free sample of evidence for evolution by natural selection.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,You assertions of monkey mischief are irreverent if you cannot answer the following…
Please explain how the universe can come from nothing exploding into order?
Also please explain how life can originate from non-life chemicals,
take you time, even if it takes you 5 million years to do so.So who's faith is it that really more far fetched Christians or Atheists such as yourself?
Witnessing to a worldwide audience in behalf of YHVH!
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 49:16 / Isaiah 60:14)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org (Ecl.9:12-16)Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 09 2010,20:22) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,19:57) Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 09 2010,19:37) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,18:40) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 09 2010,08:57) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,06:56) Do some more creationism, t8. That is always hilarious!
Creation is the only conclusion.Nothing-ism is ridiculous and something-ism that is not intelligent-ism comes second in the ridiculous stakes.
You fail to grasp the obvious.
You know reality is something that shouldn't be ignored Stu.Creation is the only valid conclusion, even for a person who has no experience with God. But sure, you are allowed to bury your head in the sand. That is what your free will allows.
That's not proper creationism t8, that's deist navel gazing!Why SHOULDN'T there be something that just appeared?
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Things that appear are usually brought from somewhere else
consisting of something else; do you agree with this?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
No.Stuart
Hi Stuart,Why not?
Where did the teapot on the shelf come from? By your concept it came from the shop, which is right. Where did the shop get it from? A potter maybe, who fashioned it from clay that had a different form from the final teapot. That also matches your idea.Where did the clay come from? It is composed mainly of silicon, aluminium and oxygen. They were transported under the force of gravity from the dust cloud given out by a supernova some five billion years ago. Still OK with your statement. The supernova made the silicon, aluminium and oxygen atoms from lighter elements. This still matches your statement, if at a bit of a stretch.
Those lighter elements started out as hydrogen and some helium. The original hydrogen formed from the combination of quarks within seconds of the birth of the universe. Where did the quarks come from? They arose from gravitational energy that appeared from the expansion of the new universe. That did not come from somewhere else or consist of something else, because energy and matter really are the same thing fundamentally.
Since we are not just talking about the irrelevant amount of matter in the kettle, or the earth, or the solar system even, but all the matter in the universe we know about, then it has actually not been brought from somewhere else consisting of something else. It has just appeared in that original quark form as the universe has expanded.
Stuart
Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 09 2010,21:40) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 25 2010,20:42) Common descent of life on the other hand is evidence on the predictions that any newly discovered species will use DNA to carry its genetic code because all life shares a common ancestor. No new species has ever been discovered that does not use DNA, or the related molecule RNA. Of course you could try the line “a common designer uses common design”, but are you really prepared to stand by that when the going gets tough? Chimpanzees and humans share a recent common ancestor (5 million years ago) and we know that because we can measure exactly how different their genomes are, compared with the differences with other more distantly-related species, and we find that retroviruses have left characteristic bits of their genes in the same genes in both species, but not in gorillas. Gorillas have other virus genes that are also shared by humans and chimpanzees, but there are no virus genes that are found in humans and gorillas but not chimpanzees. If there was no more evidence than that (they are called endogenous retroviruses) then the case would be closed for our common ancestry with the other great apes. Of course the evidence is far more extensive than that. How are you coping with it so far? I won't charge you for this free sample of evidence for evolution by natural selection.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,You assertions of monkey mischief are irreverent if you cannot answer the following…
Please explain how the universe can come from nothing exploding into order?
Also please explain how life can originate from non-life chemicals,
take you time, even if it takes you 5 million years to do so.So who's faith is it that really more far fetched Christians or Atheists such as yourself?
Witnessing to a worldwide audience in behalf of YHVH!
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 49:16 / Isaiah 60:14)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org (Ecl.9:12-16)
I can explain how living cells could very plausibly arise from non-living matter (what do you mean by living anyway?) but I will not be doing so because I don't think you have the chemistry needed to appreciate it, and you do not appear likely to me to be able to give a “christian” explanation that covers the same ground with the same level of plausibility.Perhaps we could proceed on the basis of you being able to understand the appearance of matter from gravitational energy. If you can cope with that, then let me know.
By the way, my assertions are certainly irreverent. I think you mean irrelevant!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,21:48) Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 09 2010,20:22) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,19:57) Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 09 2010,19:37) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,18:40) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 09 2010,08:57) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,06:56) Do some more creationism, t8. That is always hilarious!
Creation is the only conclusion.Nothing-ism is ridiculous and something-ism that is not intelligent-ism comes second in the ridiculous stakes.
You fail to grasp the obvious.
You know reality is something that shouldn't be ignored Stu.Creation is the only valid conclusion, even for a person who has no experience with God. But sure, you are allowed to bury your head in the sand. That is what your free will allows.
That's not proper creationism t8, that's deist navel gazing!Why SHOULDN'T there be something that just appeared?
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Things that appear are usually brought from somewhere else
consisting of something else; do you agree with this?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
No.Stuart
Hi Stuart,Why not?
Where did the teapot on the shelf come from? By your concept it came from the shop, which is right. Where did the shop get it from? A potter maybe, who fashioned it from clay that had a different form from the final teapot. That also matches your idea.Where did the clay come from? It is composed mainly of silicon, aluminium and oxygen. They were transported under the force of gravity from the dust cloud given out by a supernova some five billion years ago. Still OK with your statement. The supernova made the silicon, aluminium and oxygen atoms from lighter elements. This still matches your statement, if at a bit of a stretch.
Those lighter elements started out as hydrogen and some helium. The original hydrogen formed from the combination of quarks within seconds of the birth of the universe. Where did the quarks come from? They arose from gravitational energy that appeared from the expansion of the new universe. That did not come from somewhere else or consist of something else, because energy and matter really are the same thing fundamentally.
Since we are not just talking about the irrelevant amount of matter in the kettle, or the earth, or the solar system even, but all the matter in the universe we know about, then it has actually not been brought from somewhere else consisting of something else. It has just appeared in that original quark form as the universe has expanded.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Do you agree then that matter came from “energy”?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,21:53) Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 09 2010,21:40) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 25 2010,20:42) Common descent of life on the other hand is evidence on the predictions that any newly discovered species will use DNA to carry its genetic code because all life shares a common ancestor. No new species has ever been discovered that does not use DNA, or the related molecule RNA. Of course you could try the line “a common designer uses common design”, but are you really prepared to stand by that when the going gets tough? Chimpanzees and humans share a recent common ancestor (5 million years ago) and we know that because we can measure exactly how different their genomes are, compared with the differences with other more distantly-related species, and we find that retroviruses have left characteristic bits of their genes in the same genes in both species, but not in gorillas. Gorillas have other virus genes that are also shared by humans and chimpanzees, but there are no virus genes that are found in humans and gorillas but not chimpanzees. If there was no more evidence than that (they are called endogenous retroviruses) then the case would be closed for our common ancestry with the other great apes. Of course the evidence is far more extensive than that. How are you coping with it so far? I won't charge you for this free sample of evidence for evolution by natural selection.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,You assertions of monkey mischief are irreverent if you cannot answer the following…
Please explain how the universe can come from nothing exploding into order?
Also please explain how life can originate from non-life chemicals,
take you time, even if it takes you 5 million years to do so.So who's faith is it that really more far fetched Christians or Atheists such as yourself?
Witnessing to a worldwide audience in behalf of YHVH!
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 49:16 / Isaiah 60:14)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org (Ecl.9:12-16)
I can explain how living cells could very plausibly arise from non-living matter (what do you mean by living anyway?) but I will not be doing so because I don't think you have the chemistry needed to appreciate it, and you do not appear likely to me to be able to give a “christian” explanation that covers the same ground with the same level of plausibility.Perhaps we could proceed on the basis of you being able to understand the appearance of matter from gravitational energy. If you can cope with that, then let me know.
By the way, my assertions are certainly irreverent. I think you mean irrelevant!
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Please explain. I see it that you're stumped and just making excuses!
Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 09 2010,21:54) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,21:48) Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 09 2010,20:22) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,19:57) Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 09 2010,19:37) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,18:40) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 09 2010,08:57) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,06:56) Do some more creationism, t8. That is always hilarious!
Creation is the only conclusion.Nothing-ism is ridiculous and something-ism that is not intelligent-ism comes second in the ridiculous stakes.
You fail to grasp the obvious.
You know reality is something that shouldn't be ignored Stu.Creation is the only valid conclusion, even for a person who has no experience with God. But sure, you are allowed to bury your head in the sand. That is what your free will allows.
That's not proper creationism t8, that's deist navel gazing!Why SHOULDN'T there be something that just appeared?
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Things that appear are usually brought from somewhere else
consisting of something else; do you agree with this?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
No.Stuart
Hi Stuart,Why not?
Where did the teapot on the shelf come from? By your concept it came from the shop, which is right. Where did the shop get it from? A potter maybe, who fashioned it from clay that had a different form from the final teapot. That also matches your idea.Where did the clay come from? It is composed mainly of silicon, aluminium and oxygen. They were transported under the force of gravity from the dust cloud given out by a supernova some five billion years ago. Still OK with your statement. The supernova made the silicon, aluminium and oxygen atoms from lighter elements. This still matches your statement, if at a bit of a stretch.
Those lighter elements started out as hydrogen and some helium. The original hydrogen formed from the combination of quarks within seconds of the birth of the universe. Where did the quarks come from? They arose from gravitational energy that appeared from the expansion of the new universe. That did not come from somewhere else or consist of something else, because energy and matter really are the same thing fundamentally.
Since we are not just talking about the irrelevant amount of matter in the kettle, or the earth, or the solar system even, but all the matter in the universe we know about, then it has actually not been brought from somewhere else consisting of something else. It has just appeared in that original quark form as the universe has expanded.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Do you agree then that matter came from “energy”?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Whether I agree or not is irrelevant. It is an established fact that the two are equivalent.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,21:58) Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 09 2010,21:54) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,21:48) Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 09 2010,20:22) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,19:57) Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 09 2010,19:37) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,18:40) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 09 2010,08:57) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,06:56) Do some more creationism, t8. That is always hilarious!
Creation is the only conclusion.Nothing-ism is ridiculous and something-ism that is not intelligent-ism comes second in the ridiculous stakes.
You fail to grasp the obvious.
You know reality is something that shouldn't be ignored Stu.Creation is the only valid conclusion, even for a person who has no experience with God. But sure, you are allowed to bury your head in the sand. That is what your free will allows.
That's not proper creationism t8, that's deist navel gazing!Why SHOULDN'T there be something that just appeared?
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Things that appear are usually brought from somewhere else
consisting of something else; do you agree with this?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
No.Stuart
Hi Stuart,Why not?
Where did the teapot on the shelf come from? By your concept it came from the shop, which is right. Where did the shop get it from? A potter maybe, who fashioned it from clay that had a different form from the final teapot. That also matches your idea.Where did the clay come from? It is composed mainly of silicon, aluminium and oxygen. They were transported under the force of gravity from the dust cloud given out by a supernova some five billion years ago. Still OK with your statement. The supernova made the silicon, aluminium and oxygen atoms from lighter elements. This still matches your statement, if at a bit of a stretch.
Those lighter elements started out as hydrogen and some helium. The original hydrogen formed from the combination of quarks within seconds of the birth of the universe. Where did the quarks come from? They arose from gravitational energy that appeared from the expansion of the new universe. That did not come from somewhere else or consist of something else, because energy and matter really are the same thing fundamentally.
Since we are not just talking about the irrelevant amount of matter in the kettle, or the earth, or the solar system even, but all the matter in the universe we know about, then it has actually not been brought from somewhere else consisting of something else. It has just appeared in that original quark form as the universe has expanded.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Do you agree then that matter came from “energy”?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Whether I agree or not is irrelevant. It is an established fact that the two are equivalent.Stuart
Hi Stuart,Matter = Christ & Energy = Jesus
The same applies to Jesus Christ!
Can you now see monkey man?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEd
I'm not a monkey, I'm an ape (as are you). BD takes that as an insult, you might be interested to know! Actually it is a fact.
Stuart
t8,
Did i not outline the story of the 'Flatlanders'?Maybe it didn't register at the time because people didn't understand what it meant.
What you have done is to re-iterate it with more impact in your 'two dimensional ignoramous' post.
This then brings back the focus to the 'Flatlanders'.
Flatlanders exist in a two dimensional world. They can only walk left or right along a flat surface, and climb up and down over each other, or obstacles.
There is no concept of the third dimension, of going around each other or obstacles.
Try telling them this… Let alone about higher dimensions…
Another point: it was mentioned something about half stupid. Have you noticed that 'Stu' IS Exactly half of 'Stupid'?
Also, There is no convincing Stu. His arrogant responses suggests that he is resistant to penetration by truth, he is Stu-born to the hilt.
There is no point in arguing with such ones when they are identified.
It is as Scripture says, ''He that argues with 'a man lacking wisdom', is, himself, a 'man lacking wisdom'. ''
E.g, t8 and Stu are in a room. The light is switched on in the room.
t8 says to Stu, 'That light is bright'.
Stu replies, 'What light?'
t8, 'The light from that bulb on the ceiling'
Stu, looking straight ahead, 'I see no bulb, what are you talking about? The room is just normal to me, it is just 'light' as you say but not 'bright, brighter or less bright' it 'just is' light'
t8, 'Stu, why don't you look up and see what I'm looking at'
Stu, 'There is no 'up', it's just your imagination. You not seeing straight!'
t8, 'What if I should get the light turned off? Would that show you that the light is coming from above?'
Stu, 'No point, Cos you can never convince me that there is some source of light. My eyes show me that the room is just light, it is always light, there is no such thung as 'unlight', you are the one who is in the dark, my unlearned friend'
t8, 'Stu, are you really half of an idiot, half stu-pid?'
Stu, 'ugg?'
t8, 'Well, you said it!'Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 09 2010,22:27) There is no convincing Stu. His arrogant responses suggests that he is resistant to penetration by truth, he is Stu-born to the hilt.
You write as a flatlander, unable to see that a two-dimensional discourse will not cut the mustard in a world that has a three-dimensional understanding.Pretty apt given the several verses of Judeo-christian mythology that assert the ancients' view that the earth is flat or the shape of an inverted bowl.
Stuart
Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 09 2010,22:27) t8, 'Stu, are you really half of an idiot, half stu-pid?'
Stu, 'ugg?'
t8, 'Well, you said it!'
t8 apparently does not feel the need to call people names. He does make an attempt to argue his case on its merits, not on his ability to sling abuse.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,22:24) Ed I'm not a monkey, I'm an ape (as are you). BD takes that as an insult, you might be interested to know! Actually it is a fact.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,If what you say is true, then why do scientists call
one Hominoid Liberalus and the other Homo Sapien?Two different names for two different species; No?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Oct. 09 2010,22:39) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,22:24) Ed I'm not a monkey, I'm an ape (as are you). BD takes that as an insult, you might be interested to know! Actually it is a fact.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,If what you say is true, then why do scientists call
one Hominoid Liberalus and the other Homo Sapien?Two different names for two different species; No?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Humans are not the only species of great ape. Humans, gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos are all members of the superfamily Hominoidea.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,22:54) Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 09 2010,22:39) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 09 2010,22:24) Ed I'm not a monkey, I'm an ape (as are you). BD takes that as an insult, you might be interested to know! Actually it is a fact.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,If what you say is true, then why do scientists call
one Hominoid Liberalus and the other Homo Sapien?Two different names for two different species; No?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Humans are not the only species of great ape. Humans, gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos are all members of the superfamily Hominoidea.Stuart
Hi Stuart,Hominoid simply means to walk upright.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
