I was discussing this earlier today with my girlfriend, and it seems Christianity (and J.W. and Mormons) meet the requirements of being a cult:

1) Attempts to actively seek/attract new members, often door to door.
2) Requirements of financial support.
3) Threat of bad things happening to your soul if you're not a member.
4) Disavowing any other belief system as flawed/false.

So, I figured I'd run it through the good ol' Forum Lounge. Mark, don't bother responding, we already know what you'll say. Anyone else, feel free.

Financial support is encouraged but not required. Does that offset the theory?

Uh, sure, we can be a cult. :)

All depends on your definition.


My personal definition for cult though is the leader is a man/woman/group/statue/whatever on earth, but thats just me, and not the dictionary definition.

Also, if Christian = Follower of Christ, you cant really include JWs and Mormons.

5) Xtains feels insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

6) Xtains vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of theirs.

7) They are willing to spend their life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

as slaves whos only virtue is obedience

Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing


inventing occult monsters to terrify their fellow tribesmen into submission with.

door to door

un-Biblical


And what is your personal method of evangelism? I don't do door to door myself, but I do engage people in "the market place".

heh, it seems that any definition of cult has to be most carefully worded to exclude the politically powerful cults that are in charge.

so christianity is not a cult because the definition of cult is 'anything that acts like christianity but isn't christianity'.

this applies to like every religion ever.

even buddhism.

this applies to like every religion ever.

even buddhism.

yup.:peace:

door-to-door is a complete waste of time, I wouldn't be caught dead doing it...you have to build some type of relationship with a person, that is the method Paul laid down and it's the only way that really works,

as opposed to the way jesus did it, talking to the 'hardened' on the street.

God's own commands and behavior are proof that he is unfit for children.

5) Xtains feels insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

I didn't even know there are still people out there that don't believe in the evolution of man. How many still believe the earth is flat?

Jesus worked primarily through the 12, illustrating the same principle beautifully...he discipled them first before sending them out to others

the "emerging church" of 2007 tries to do it the opposite way, from the outside-in: they attempt to attract worldly people with entertainment...and it always fails

Indeed, entertainment is not what can truly satisfy our souls.

The peace of the Lord is a satisfaction that cannot be gained any other way. Only God can provide it. The heathen rages, but there is no shalom.

Our Lord is the Prince of Peace.

They may try to pretend their arguments are logical, but they are only fooling themselves as they try to find rest for their souls elsewhere, but it will not happen.

All His ways are pleasantness,: And all His paths are peace.

actually, most people don't believe it, because there is zero evidence for it in the fossil record

That is the most two of the absurd and biased statement I have ever read on this forum. Just because a complete fossil record doesn't exist doesn't make the assertion a fact, it just hasn't been proven yet. And as time goes on, and the more that fossils are discovered, the more clear the picture becomes. And newer fossils have been discovered and the picture is getting clearer with in the last few decades.

Here are a few sites the substantiate that fact

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12286206/
http://www.slate.com/id/2124297/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9786-why-doesnt-america-believe-in-evolution.html


How about this, what to say that God did not use evolution as the mechanisim for the creation of man?

Here is an artical that brings up idea that God guided the process.
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/majority-of-americans-reject-theory-of/20051024100409990019?ncid=NWS

Even well respected people hold that idea, Jimmy Carter, Pope John Paul II
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA602.html


Let us also talk about why the US does not believe in evolution.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html

It is my belief that uneducated bible thumping right wing religious fanatics are keeping America ‘dumbed’ down, because they cannot teach religion in the classrooms. And because of it, they will not allow evolution to be taught in the schools.
Such a sad day when one group can destroy the freedom of another because of their beliefs, which is so un-American.

They may try to pretend their arguments are logical

Only a simpleton would be able to make that incongruous statement. I've heard it so many times. "Stupid Smart People"

God gave you a brain; do you think that He would want you to use it in this manner? What a squandered gift from Him by again 'dumbing' down the rest of us. God gave you a brain, so use it for yourself, not what 'others' tell you. That’s how cults start.

Just because you are incapable of any abstract reasoning, or thinking outside of the lines doesn't mean that the rest of us have to be as preposterous as you.

BTW, by making a statement like you have, you have destroyed any work of peace by Him...which was your point Think before you talk, don't follow the YZF cult.

Jesus worked primarily through the 12, illustrating the same principle beautifully...he discipled them first before sending them out to others

the "emerging church" of 2007 tries to do it the opposite way, from the outside-in: they attempt to attract worldly people with entertainment...and it always fails


so it was the 12 who changed water into wine ?
it was the 12 the throngs of people came to see ?

howcome the 12 werent hung up right alongside their co conspirator ?

no, the 12 were in the background while jesus was front man for the show.


what was the point of the fishes and loaves at the sermon on the mount EXCEPT "to attract worldly people with entertainment" ?

c'mon superhack, you repeat the same tired liberal claptrap over and over...are you drunk?

Sorry I really don't drink, again your assertion FAILED. At least my 'claptrap' makes more sense than your mystic aborations.


it is IMPOSSIBLE to read darwinian fairy tales and "millions of years" of death and decay into the creation account


This is because you have not the gray matter to absorb His skills as the master architect. Again, He does thing methodically, for a reason. He has never come down and said 'I AM', or taken himself down from the cross. Shall we school you again on faith YZF? You lost that argument, again you forget.


we've been over this


And still you have not learned anything, so sad for an 'educated' person. But thats what a training 'college' will do for a person. Not to teach them how to think but to follow is the general consensus.

actually, most people don't believe it,

Roughly 40% of people in the US polled believe humans were created in their current form. That number drops precipitously in Western Europe and Asia where evangelical Christianity is not the norm. There's also a strong reverse correlation between education and religiosity. Most dumb people are really religious. Wonder why that is?


because there is zero evidence for it in the fossil record

Again, your personal ignorance means nothing.


BTW...

posting on an internet forum is also dumb, for the most part

You owe me a new keyboard for that. :)

the polls vary, I've heard 60% plus



simple: God chose the weak things to shame the strong, to "nullify the things that are", and bring low the proud

and you will be brought low

God delights in humbling the little ants on this tiny world....it's an ever widening circle...you may be smarter than some, but you are a complete fool relative to God

a serious question--how can you brag about your accomplishments, and display the pride you display, and at the same time talk about how God will "bring low the proud" like it doesnt include you? No one brags more about themselves, their education, job, money, possessions, intelligence, muscles, girlfriend, etc etc etc in here than you do, so if the proud will be brought low, what is it about God that allows you to display that pride and still be saved?

Let us also talk about why the US does not believe in evolution.

The polls I've seen suggest that the overwhelming majority of people in the world believe in evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life. It's only a small subset of biblical literalists (with a few exceptions..e.g. Krishnas and Raelians) that object to it on religious grounds. Most are like Mark in that he's repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn't even understand what he objects to.


It is my belief that uneducated bible thumping right wing religious fanatics are keeping America ‘dumbed’ down, because they cannot teach religion in the classrooms. And because of it, they will not allow evolution to be taught in the schools.

Nonsense. We teach evolution in schools...period.

Despite many attempts to wedge creationism into schools there's never been a moratorium on teaching evolution, as it is regarded as scientific fact.

Since the teaching of evolution isn't going anywhere several creationist groups have tried to impose "teaching the controversy", "Intelligent design", and "equal time" measures with basically no success. If you're curious the relevant court cases are

Edwards v Aguillard
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html

Mclean v Arkansas
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html

Kitzmiller v. Dover (the most recent attempt to incorporate ID)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

Such a sad day when one group can destroy the freedom of another because of their beliefs, which is so un-American.

That's life. If it makes you feel any better they aren't really making any headway. We still teach science in school, and the details put nail after nail in the creationist coffin year after year. Most people recognize their foolishness for what it is. Creationism died as a viable explanation a long time ago, despite what Mark would have you believe.

Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age,


This is the past, so what was the standard of that age YZF? I bet you don't even know, but somehow you want to apply it to now. This is so out of context.


this is the Word of God!


No, this was the letters of Paul, inspired by Him, sent to the Corinthians.
Learn your Bible YZF, and the difference between inspired and fundamental.


no more boasting about men and their "wisdom"!

Seems to me you are the first one to always bring up the 'I have more education than you card', now you want to change that? Where did you go to college anyway? Phoenix online trade degrees? You show no discernable thought process.

the polls vary, I've heard 60% plus

I've never seen it that high. They almost always hover around 40%, and there's always a negative correlation with education.

Here's a recent survey from Science (via Panda's Thumb since most people won't have access to Science). Interesting that there's also a strong correlation with (self identifying) political affiliation.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2007/01/belief_in_evo_lg.jpg

The polls I've seen suggest that the overwhelming majority of people in the world believe in evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life.


And so is my point, did you look at the first link from National Geographic.
When is the US going to stop being held hostage by this mindset? The US is second to last in this statistic, but the world believes otherwise. The key is the term 'the world' and not the US alone.



It's only a small subset of biblical literalists (with a few exceptions..e.g. Krishnas and Raelians) that object to it on religious grounds. Most are like Mark in that he's repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn't even understand what he objects to.


I'll put an exclamation point on that statement.



Nonsense. We teach evolution in schools...period.


No we teach it as evolution theory, big differance.



Despite many attempts to wedge creationism into schools there's never been a moratorium on teaching evolution, as it is regarded as scientific fact.


Not true, in Kansas it is next to impossible to teach evolution...I have first hand knowledge and experiance of this. Do you?


Creationism died as a viable explanation a long time ago, despite what Mark would have you believe.

I don't think think that is true, Mark is of the type of a follower, and lives on the east coast which is more red than blue and he has posted many links to support that there are many more like him unfortunatly.

Creation guided by God, there is something to think about!

complete nonsense

the majority REJECT darwinism


I suppose you don't know how to read a graph either?
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/well_at_least_w.html
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/images/Miller_etal_2006_Science_Public_Acceptance_Evo.gif


good post

The fact that you feel the need to edit my words to say what you want them to merely reinforces the fact that you have no footing.

what does that graph prove?

That your average creationist doesn't have a high school level education.

what does that graph prove?

That a trade school degree means you are a moron. (Sorry I couldn't help myself) Please disregard....

Come on, you can't see the correlation in education vs. belief in evolution?

"Stupid Stupid people"

Where does your assertion stand now YZF?

The fact that you feel the need to edit my words to say what you want them to merely reinforces the fact that you have no footing.

heh, he does it to gods Word too, so don't feel too special.

oh I know you're just so smart....you're so high above the hoi polloi


I have seen no evidence of of any smugness. Seems to me when threatened with a valid argument you freeze like a deer in the headlights YZF.


smart enough to end up in hell because you worship yourself....interestng how that works

Again you judge YZF, such a bad way to *not* prove what little point you have. Bascally you are telling him to go to hell....how christian is that YZF, are you not your brother's keeper?

And so is my point, did you look at the first link from National Geographic.

Yes. I've seen it before.

When is the US going to stop being held hostage by this mindset?

When it decides to stop respecting people's belief in fairy tales.

The US is second to last in this statistic, but the world believes otherwise.

Western Europe is mostly secular. Asia is decidely non-Abrahamic. It's mostly people that follow a literal interpretation of "the Pentateuch" that believe in YEC nonsense.


No we teach it as evolution theory, big differance.

How so? Do you understand what the scientific definition of "theory" is. It's the highest degree of certainty we can assign something. There are no "proofs" in science. The best you can do is say that we've yet to observe anything that falsifies the model. And if/when that day comes we'll adjust the model as needed.


Not true, in Kansas it is next to impossible to teach evolution...I have first hand knowledge and experiance of this. Do you?

I'm quite familiar with the Kansas school board and their decisions to alter the definition of what science is to allow ID/Creationism to be taught as an alternative to evolution. However, you are correct when you assert I have no firsthand experience teaching in Kansas. I'm unaware of any school boards that prevent the teaching of evolution. If they are that's unfortunate. The Edwards and McLean decisions merely prevent the teaching of Creation. They don;t say anything about the constituents of a school district dumbing down the education plan because it upsets a few parents. :(

I have plenty of experience teaching at the college level in Washington state, Oregon, and Texas. Rest assured that there is no lack of creationists in any of those states.


I don't think think that is true, Mark is of the type of a follower, and lives on the east coast which is more red than blue and he has posted many links to support that there are many more like him unfortunatly.

Oh. I wasn't suggesting that there weren't creationists. They're just not in a position to affect much of anything other than public opinion. You'd be hard pressed to find a practcing scientist that's a creationist. Most of them are engineers, philosophers, and lawyers.

Creation guided by God, there is something to think about!

I suppose if you're really lazy and don't want to figure out how something works. I've always found "goddidit" to be a lousy explanation. :)

huh? what in the heck are you babbling about now, superhack?

ALL scripture is "God breathed".....ALL


Here you quote Corinthians but according to Pauls own admissions that they are words of his own and not of Gods.

http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/God_Breathed.htm

"Paul: My Teachings Come from Me, Not God


Other evidence that Paul was not speaking of the New Testament writings when he said that all scripture is God-breathed comes in his admission that what he said was his opinion, not God's teaching:



To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. (1 Corinthians 7:12)


Obviously, Paul (above) wants his readers to know that it was Paul, not God, ("I, not the Lord") who teaches that even a non-believing wife must not be divorced. Thus, this teaching is not "God-breathed." We must conclude from this that either the editors of the Bible did not consider Paul's words (above) to be part of "Scripture," or else the Bible is in error when it said that all of Scripture is God-breathed.

Other evidence that Paul's writings were not God-inspired is found in the verse below in which Paul himself said that the things he taught were his own opinion, not God's. Paul says that he is not expressing a view that was inspired in him by God, and to make sure his audience knows that it is just his opinion, he says, "I think":



Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. (1 Corinthians 7:25-26)
"

You FAIL again YZF.

oh I know you're just so smart

Finally you've said something I agree with. I see you're still using four periods for an ellipses though despite it being repeatedly pointed out to you that only three are necessary. :nono:

smart enough to end up in hell because you worship yourself....interestng how that works

Feel free to show me the evidence for your argument. And remember, your bible doesn't count. :)

happy to be considered a "fool"

Believe. Not much doubt there.

for the Living God

God's alive now? Can we get a DNA sample?

heh, he does it to gods Word too, so don't feel too special.

I don't. ;)

I have plenty of experience teaching at the college level in Washington state, Oregon, and Texas. Rest assured that there is no lack of creationists in any of those states.


Believe me, you do not want to live in KS with what they do there, let alone go to school. Even if it is not policy, teachers will assert their religion on you, and you are an outsider if you do not agree. No wonder I hated the F'up state. Glad I only lived there for a year. But even so, they do teach it even if it is not policy.


Oh. I wasn't suggesting that there weren't creationists. They're just not in a position to affect much of anything other than public opinion. You'd be hard pressed to find a practcing scientist that's a creationist. Most of them are engineers, philosophers, and lawyers.


In fact here in Denver two well known lawyers with their own talk show talk about their belief in God and how he created everything. One is Jewish and one is Catholic. Great discussions and both believe in evolution guided by Him. Great listening on the way home from work.


I suppose if you're really lazy and don't want to figure out how something works. I've always found "goddidit" to be a lousy explanation. :)

On the contrary, It starts the thinking process on how exactly He did it. I marvel in His work as an methodical architect, which is my point.

On the contrary, It starts the thinking process on how exactly He did it. I marvel in His work as an methodical architect, which is my point.

Gotcha. I don't believe in a supernatural explanation for anything after the Big Bang. IMHO it's unnecessary baggage.

the Creator gets no praise from you, in your self obsessed life....tragic

That's all you've got? Telling me that I'm self obsessed? As if that isn't the pot calling out the kettle. :rolleyes:

in regard to those who foolishly claim the epistles of Paul are not inspired by the Spirit of God


This seems particularly inspired too. :rolleyes:

1 Corinthians

14:34
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
14:35
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

that phrase does not mean, 'what I'm about to write is not inspired scripture'...clearly, Paul was an apostle of God, and accomplished more than the 12 combined

the phrase simply means, 'this is new teaching/doctrine, in addition to what has already been spoken by the Lord (already recorded in the gospels)'


Again you twist the bible to conform to your hacked beliefs and you show it here by chopping up the bilbe to comform to your warped mind....Prove me wrong YZF. 99% of the people here know it to be true here and agree. Does that stamp anything into your brainwashed concrete skull?

One day YZF your parents are going to pull up in a black van, grab you, throw you in, take you to a motel and un-wash whatever sick perversion someone has brainwashed into that head of yours.....unless you haven't killed them and eaten them already.

(Thats probably going to end up in a sig for sure )

engineering is a practical scientific discipline,

Sure it is. The only engineers I've met that consider themselves scientists are creobot wannabes like yourself.


as opposed to PhDs who live in a test tube and can't get a real job, cooler heads prevail

A "real job"? A Professor's position isn't a real job? :scratch: How about a Senior Scientist position in industry? That count? Director of NIH? NSF?

this is so short sighted to me

God can cause the formation of the universe (although I reject the "big bang"), but is somehow impotent to create life??

Show me evidence for creation. There are perfectly plausable naturalistic explanations for everything post Big Bang. What we don't know (and likely never will) is what caused the Big Bang, and what happened pre singularity. We don't even know if the current "bang" is the only one. Nor do we know if our universe is unique.

I've studied the Bible for 20 years, I've read and listened to the best pastor-teachers in the world: MacArthur, Piper, Sproll, Packer, Kennedy, Jeremiah, Tozer


Yay. Another argument from authority. We really should play "count the logical fallacies" sometime. :)

you're a kid with a big mouth, that's all you are

And you're not quite a kid anymore...though you still have a big mouth (online at least, as we've touched on your IRL meekness).

if engineering is not an applied science, I don't know what you would call it

Engineering isn't a good enough term? :scratch:

geez, you live in such a glass fortress separated from reality you'd probably start crying if you held a real job for a week

I guess we'll chalk my employment history under the "Mark's personal ignorance" column. It's a pretty big list.

in regard to those who foolishly claim the epistles of Paul are not inspired by the Spirit of God

2 Peter 3

....consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.


Ha, the current Christian canon was not assembled yet at the time of this passages writing so this term of 'Scriptures' must mean the Tanakh, which Jesus himself removed. You FAIL again by your lack of understanding of the time of this bible scripture!

in regard to those who foolishly claim the epistles of Paul are not inspired by the Spirit of God

2 Peter 3

....consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

that pasaage was written for superhack and his ilk

nice error there, marky--"the rest of the scriptures" refers to nothing more than what the "untaught and unstable people" twisted. That IN NO WAY means that every word Paul wrote was God-breathed....it simply described what the people in question did. Nothing more. Nothing less. Speaking of twisting scripture, you're guilty as charged. Reading owned you....better luck next time.

explain the formation of DNA

It likely came from modifying RNA. RNA is inherently unstable because it has two reactive hydroxyl groups on the ribose ring. By losing one of the hydroxyl groups it becomes a much more stable polymer. Both RNA and DNA Nucleotides are among the easiest polymers to generate in your standard abiogenesis experiment.

explain the formation of a water molecule

You got me there, but I'm not a chemist


explain the formation of the human eye

That one is easy. There is a whole litanny of light respondant organelles in nature. It's not tough to trace the evolution of the eye.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

*Edit*
Bah! 95whitepep beat me to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
staring at the floor

Not much time for that I'm afraid. We're far too busy with our experiments.

explain the formation of DNA

explain the formation of a water molecule

explain the formation of the human eye

staring at the floor and missing an ocean of reality...it's PhD micro-world

Sad argument as now most of these popular arguments have been debunked.
Get out of the last century YZF...

Here is a Wiki for eye evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

You FAIL again with your unoriginal regurgitated spew YZF.

the scriptures at that moment in time referred to everything written down by the apostles and prohets to that date, which included most, if not all, or Paul's letters....this was late in Peter's life

--half of which are not included in the bible, as many books were discarded AFTER the time when all "scripture" was written. So, that should say something, and you left that part out of your little story.

I understand completely...as usual

you're a little kid at my feet

Werent you the same guy that was just saying the other day that no one can completely understand? Yet here you go again, with your arrogant self, thinking that you are so much better than the rest of the humans in this world. Where is the chapter and verse that allows such behavior? Please post it.

You FAIL again with your unoriginal regurgitated spew YZF.

Sadly, that is why they all fail. None of them appear to be able to think for themselves. It's a rare day indeed when a new creationist argument is presented.

So what of it Mark? Can women speak in church or not?

the scriptures at that moment in time referred to everything written down by the apostles and prophets to that date, which included most, if not all, or Paul's letters....this was late in Peter's life


Again you twist the Bible YZF, you are wrong here, clearly and contextually.

You are so getting owned tonight its not funny...

correct

look, dude, dont run around here changing what I said. If I needed your help, I would most certainly have asked for it. Stop screwing with other people's post just so you can feel like you got a pair. If you need to change what someone else said to make yourself feel better, you need to seek professional help.

LOL

"wiki" and "webster"....the SUPER hack Bible!

:roll:

Here. I'll highlight the important part of the wiki link for you.

The eye argument thus stems from a "God of the gaps" strategy, or more broadly, the "argument from incredulity" fallacy.

Keep those fallacies coming.

you're right! I wasn't there, I can't "think for myself" (make an assessment based on experience) about Creation!

Thinking != make an assessment based on experience.

and here's a little hint: you can't, either

Sure I can Mark. I'm always free to think. I'm not tied to worshiping a book like you are. :bigthumb:

I've studied the Bible for 20 years, I've read and listened to the best pastor-teachers in the world: MacArthur, Piper, Sproll, Packer, Kennedy, Jeremiah, Tozer


Oh yea, 20 yrs and it really shows :rolleyes:

Name dropping here YZF...now we know where you get your hacked up, brainwashed views. Doesn't impress me a bit.

I waiting for you to emotional EMO again. 3......2........1.........

question for you guys:

would you die for what you believe?

I'd prefer not to since we only get one shot at this, and my little girl needs a daddy in her life, but sure.

how confident are you, in terms of ultimate questions?

100% convinced.

no, superhack....I leave that to you and Lucifer, your brother

right--like you left it to answers in genesis to mess up on the actual hebrew text and its meaning, right? You merely followed their lead, so its their fault and you didnt twist anything....nice excuse. Question is, do ya think it will work? I dont.

no, superhack....I leave that to you and Lucifer, your brother

Telling me now to go to hell, huh YZF, Are you your brothers keeper? You serve only yourself, that is so un-christian of you, I'm beginning to believe where your true heart lives.

it certainly is not "science"

:roll:

You've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no idea what and what is not science. Add another one to the pile


I worship the God of the Book

No. By all appearances you pretty much worship the book.

You seem to have lost the whole love thy neighbor, treat others as you would be treated message.

How many still believe the earth is flat?

Funny you should ask...

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/

what you calling "thinking" is most accurately defined as "imagining"

it certainly is not "science"



I worship the God of the Book

and I will not be disappointed

worshi[[ing the God of the book is supposed to entail doing what that God tells you to, and not doing what He tells you not to. Let us know how you're coming on that.

Seriously, do you even realize how many people would listen to you so much more if not for your contradictions? Imagine the good you could do for the fight....but with you it always has to be about how you're so far above everyone else...that is NOT worshipping God, it's worshipping yourself. Go learn the difference.

100% convinced God initiated the "Big Bang" and stopped there, correct?

100% convinced there is a natural explanation to everything yes. We don't need a God to fill in the gaps of our understanding. That doesn't mean there's no God. I just don't believe there's a personal God that answers prayers and changes/guides events in our world.

of course, the only book you've read concerning doctrine is likely "Your Best Life Now" by Olsteen


Why would anyone read that tripe?
Thats supposed to be funny? You FAIL at funny.

Here is something funny to read:


(http://www.theforumlounge.com/thread8457-p2-this-shit-is-so-funny-i-just-cant-make-it-up.html)

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q255/95whitepep/js2.jpg

observable, testable, repeatable

The problem with you chanting the observable, testable, repeatable mantra is that you clearly don't understand what it means in science. Apparently you think science "proves" things when that's not the way it works. You come up witha model and hypothesis and then you try to falsify it. If you can you need to adjust your model. Repeatable means that you can describe the experimental setup so that anyone with the appropriate skill set can perform the experiment themselves.

If we were limited to testing things in real time we wouldn't get very far.

none of which apply to the creation event...am I correct, dr. drew?
The short answer is you're wrong.

The creation event and evolution, as I've been telling you, are two different things.

I believe you can easily test both. Read up on the Harvard Origin of Life (OoL) project. They plan to recreate life de novo.

y'all type too fast .

the difference between scientists and engineers is that engineers follow the rules that scientists create.

so naturally cultists would be followers, that being the mindset that their cult demands, rather than creators, which their cult deems sin, because ONLY god is allowed to create.

except the "big bang"?

I'm not aware of any knowledge we have Pre Big Bang other than a postulated singularity.

contradictory to your previous statement

Which previous statement? That a God may have created the first life on Earth and evolution progressed from there? I don't discount the possibility of a panspermic or "seeding" event, but I don't think they are necessary either. Life originating through abiogenesis is perfectly plausible. 3.5 billion years is a really long time. Eukaryotes have only been around for ~1 billion.

true science entails postulating a hypothesis, then making observations to test that hypothesis, which may be considered a theory if repeated observations confirm the hypothesis

this procedure is not possible with regard to origins...period

How so? What's holding it back?


correct, but evolution can be reverse extrapolated to make inferences about the origin of life, which is not science
Evolution says absolutely nothing about how life originiated. Zip, zero, nada. It merely explains how diversity came about once life was rolling.

Common descent is accepted fact. Every organism on the planet shares a common ancestor, or small group of ancestors. That merely debunks "human" origins as described in the bible. I'll even grant that it doesn't prevent humans from being made in God's image, as front loading is entirely possible. I don't believe that we are though.

completely unscientific random speculation

Again. Your person incredulity is meaningless. Your dislike of the data or its interpretation is irrelevant. The Earth is ~4.5 billion years old. The oldest fossils we've found are prokaryote like and ~3.5 billion years old. Eukaryotes don't show up in the fosill record for an additional 2.5 billion years. I'm sorry that conflicts with your religious views. :moon:

but it facilitates inferences about it: materialism

How so? Because you want a strawman to burn? Explain how evoultion=materialism

true

I'll accept your changing my words as conceding defeat.


more unscientific speculation

Again. Your personal objections mean squat.

Take a gander at a nested hierarchy sometime. Take a look at how all primates have the same inactivated ascrbate acid sysnthase gene all disrupted in the same spot. Take a look at how all cats are missing the taste receptors for sweetness due to the same mutation in the same gene. Run CLUSATLW on protein sequences of seemingly unrelated organisms sometime. Anyone with eyes can see how things line up and where the differences are.

speculation...not science

Funny. It's in my college geology text book.



see above

C-14 is useless for such imaginary dates, so they are guesstimated based on radio dating of rock layers, which is still more guesstimation

No, radio dating of rock layers is solidly accepted science. Any idea how many isotopes can be used to radiodate? Your objections are meaningless.

Explain how a fossil gets into a rock if they are not the same age.

simple, the religion of evolution facilitates an materialistic philosophy: matter and energy is eternal, the supernatural domain does not exist, and all life is self creating and self sustaining.

I fail to see the problem there. And what you've described is more naturalistic than materialistic.

materialists have lost God in His creation

No. We haven't "lost" anything. There's simply no evidence to support your creation mythology.

they ascribe supernatural intelligence to DNA itself

No.

and miss the Designer

Yet there's no evidence of design, much less a designer.

sure...and who wrote that?

Presumably a Geologist, with training in...Geology. People with the relevant training and expertise are the ones that write the textbooks Mark. It's an amazing concept that you seem to fail to grasp.

another religionist duped in his belief system

Right. Those silly "Darwinist" geologists. :rolleyes: Just one massive conspiracy among scientists. Some day I'll teach you the secret handshake. :eek:


sure, "millions of years" is an essential part of the materialist delusion, so the many glaring problems and inconsistencies associated with radio dating of rocks are simply ignored to keep the fantasy alive

There aren't any glaring weaknesses. Only creationist strawmen.

oh I know, it's AIG, so it's "ignorance" *smiles*

No. It's AIG, so it's willful deception, otherwise known as lying.

it's an endless do-loop

Only because you're wrong, and insist on repeating your tired mantra. The evidence is all on the side of science. You're either wrong in your literal interpretation of scripture or your God is a deceiver and a liar.

but you can only be proven wrong

Hardly. You've already been shown to be wrong. And we don't have to wait for some nebulous future event to confirm that.


many of the greatest physicists, including Einstein, disagreed with you
Even if he did disagree with what I believe, so what? There's still no evidence, and all you have to fall back on is an argument from authority...which is yet another logical fallacy. Keep them coming, I'm sure you can hit for the cycle.

Fact is you're wrong. Einstein was at best a pantheist/deist (not so different from my own belief). He had no belief in your personal God.

And

oh, I understand it perfectly well

You'll have to forgive me for doubting that, as you've repeatedly demonstrated that you don't understand how the system works.

"The question of origins is plainly a matter of science history—not the domain of applied science. Contrary to the unilateral denials of many evolutionists, one’s worldview does indeed play heavily on one’s interpretation of scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement—the three immutable elements of the scientific method—may be employed. Many proponents of evolutionism nevertheless persist in claiming exclusive “scientific” status for their popularized beliefs, while curtly dismissing (if not angrily deriding) all doubters, and spurning the very advice of Darwin himself."

Flat out BS. Repeat it all you want, but your personal incredulity is meaningless.

lol looks like someone in here just exploded a tomahawk missile on top of a M1A1 tank. Good show Wingsfan :)

the point is, men FAR smarter
...than god.
correct

the entire periodic table is evidence, your moron...the UNIVERSE screams design
Interesting take however when we examine closer to these atoms, it is easily to see how they naturally fall into place, versus a rigid design as you suggest. You can call it evidence, sure. Evidence for what? Evidence from a creator? Your bible friends' data isn't convincing. That doesn't mean give up. Keep trying and research more.

and the M1 keeps right on rolling, crushing atheists/agnostics at will

Like the limp biscuit song?

no, you're wrong

No you are...no your are...no you are...

A first grader can keep up with your argument.


agreed

More misquoting. I happily accept your concession of defeat.

the point is, men FAR smarter than a pointy headed little lab rat like yourself believed, and still believe, in Design in the universe

I could give a rats ass what anyone believes. If they have evidence to support their beliefs they should present it. Otherwise it's just a (religious) opinion. And as I pointed out before, their opinions are no more relevant than the gal checking me out at the supermarket or the pedophile the next neighborhood over. *shrug*


the entire periodic table is evidence, your moron...

Evidence that atoms and chemicals exist sure. Just how much time do you think it would take for the elements of the table to all result from hydrogen fusion? Here's a hint. It would take much longer than 6000 years.

the UNIVERSE screams design

Interesting that I've never heard anyone other than an Abrahamic believer make that argument. You'd think I'd have run across it in a class or two if it were true.

but he clearly believed in Design in the universe, something your little flapping gums foolishly rages against

Perhaps you should read what he actually wrote so you can get the context. It's pretty obvious you're butchering what he wrote as badly as you butcher scripture.

you can only be buried

I'm going to be cremated, unless I can find a company wiling to fossilize me. :D

tell me then, what evidence of design in nature would you recognize or respect??

Anything that didn't have a plausible natural explanation or traceable evoultionary history. We've yet to encounter anything like that in Biology.

The Physics "fine tuning" arguement coupled to quantam mechanics (from the little I actually understand) is the closest things to design in nature that I can see. Most physicists don't seem to think there's evidence of design though, so I'll trust their judgment.

I can think of thousands of examples

They're likely all wrong and easily refuted (and likely not your own thoughts). Claptraps like the eye, immune system, clotting systems, basterial flagellum, etc. are tiresome at this point.

but you would go right back to your darwinian beleif system...it's an impasse

It's an impasse because the ToE works better than any other explanation and has all of the current evidence on its side. You don't have anything to offer other than personal incredulity and hand waving.

"chocolate starfish....gonna keep on rollin babbbyyyyyy"

;)

It's hard to think of a shittier or more overrated band.

the Bible is still the most widely read Book in the world, with a 3500 year history; everything else is trivial in comparison


OK, great. The Odyssey and the Iliad have an even longer history... Just because a lot of people read something, doesn't make it true.

Jesus, can you come up with a more asinine argument?

lol looks like someone in here just exploded a tomahawk missile on top of a M1A1 tank. Good show Wingsfan :)

Thanks. It's not tough. Most of Mark's arguments are older than I am and have been shot down and cataloged for almost as long.

how about the origin of information...the origin of RNA?

Nucleotides aren't particularly difficult to create de novo and there are plenty of examples of small self replicating stretches (ribozymes). So no, the origin of RNA isn't a strong case for design.


you'll go to your grave a bitter, joyless, jaded old man....just like Carl Sagan

I doubt it. I'd venture a guess that I'm far happier than you are.

I see God in the molecular structure of a blade of grass

My guess is that you don't even have a passing familiarity with the molecular structure of a blade of glass. There's more to it than cellulose.

...or distant galaxies and stars of the cosmos...the Universal Presence speaks to those who have "ears to hear and eyes to see", everyone else is blinded

In other words evidence be damned, you see what you want to. *shrug*

great video
http://www.illustramedia.com/tppinfo.htm

Not really. We (professional biologists) pretty much laugh at Guillermo for his inanity. :bigthumb: He's no different than Behe, Wells, or any of the other "credentialled" scientists that have a religious bone to pick with the establishment.

of course, you loons laugh at anyone who disagrees with your wacky religious system

We laugh at people when they have nothing more than their own incredulity to support their argument.

nothing really changes throughout time, Noah was mocked and jeered for building an Ark

I doubt it, since the ark never happened. :)

in your opinion

Not really. The number of holes in the Ark theory pretty much reduce it to a physical impossibility. Plus, there's no evidence for it. :)

again, that's your opinion

Not really. Someone else compiled all the details for us. :bigthumb:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

I'm sure God smiles at your personal incredulity


:roll:

counterpoint

http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

Mine has real references. :) The rebutal to your rebutal. :roll:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/henke/krh-floodnonsense.html

The Ark is one of the easier theories to dismiss. Especially when you do something silly like limit post flood time to a few thousand years. :)

What's your opinion on Glenn Morton? Do you think he's a traitor?

I'm not familar with him

Glenn Morton's Story: Why I Left Young Earth Creationism (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm)

the evidence for a global flood is ubiquitous in the geologic column/record
Not really. The geology courses I took made now mention of it, and I've never seen a secular scientist make claims of a global flood. If the evidence were there it would be taught. It's not. I'm sorry that conflicts with your religious views. *shrug*

without radio dating, no one can formulate a decent attack

Nonsense. The physical limitations of how many animals could fit onto the boat, and the rate of speciation required post-flood are enough to invalidate it's occurance in the time frame you suggest. Couple that with fossil sorting (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Fossil_Sorting) and the complete lack of evidence for a global flood and it's a no brainer. Put it in the same category as Aesop's.

"fossil sorting" has long been debunked

:roll: good one.

fossils are buried in massive graveyards, with all types of plants and animals buried in random succession

Random succession? :scratch: Try again. If they were truly random we would see complex fossils in every strata. That's not the case.

Mr. Morton needs to read this
http://www.theforumlounge.com/showpost.php?p=122515&postcount=1

I'm guessing he probably has. Glenn keeps a compilation of "full of holes" creationist arguments for posterity.

I'm not sure why you say that

Because there are two trends in the fossil record. A trend towards complexity and a trend towards modernity. Both invalidate a global flood explanation for their existence.

are elephants as common as rats?

What do you suppose that has to do with sorting?

were dinosaurs as common as the millions of nautiloids found in the rock layers in GC?

The key is where they are found, not their rarity.

again, it's a question of perception and limited data

Only in your mind. The data doesn't seem to be all that lacking, and the paleontologists don't seem to agree with your assessment. I'm sorry that conflicts with your religious beliefs. *shrug*

I hope he finds rest in his new-found athiesm

Oh. Glenn's still an evangelical Christian. He's just not a YEC nutter anymore.

nonsense...simple life tended to be buried and preserved first

:roll:

Seriously Mark. Do better.

I suppose all that complex life just outran all that simple life that couldn't get out of the way of all that water.

fossilization only occurs during special conditions, anyway, such as those during a Flood


*Sigh* You're hopelessly ignorant. The saddest part is that it's self inflicted.

it's a slippery slope

Not really. A person's religious affiliation is pretty irrelevant, since they're likely all wrong anyways.

such people may ostensibly claim to believe in Christ, but they deny the Word, so they in effect deny Christ, and very often leave the faith entirely after a period of time

Your opinion. No more relevant than mine, the counter gal, or the pedophile's. *shrug*

admission of defeat

Please. :rolleyes: Expressing my disgust at your willful ignorance isn't an admission of anything other than frustration.

tell me, genius...how are fossils formed?

You know damn well how fossils form. What's that got to do with sorting? How does an icthyosaur end up in different strata than a dolphin? How about birds and pterosaurs? Flowering plants v. non flowering plants? Those are all easily explained by evolutionary theory...and are impossible for a global flood model.

is fossilization the common, ubiquitous process materialists seem to think it is??

fact is it rarely occurs

Who says that? No one in their right mind. I certainly haven't. I have always stated that fossilization is an extremely rare event.

I agree, all religions invented by man are dead wrong...including "goo-to-you" darwinism

And as I've explained. "Darwinism" doesn't exist anywhere but the creationist mind. *shrug*

are you claiming simpler life is never found in the same strata as complex life?

No. Like I said, there are two trends to the fossil record.


sad that the ubiquitous evidence of Genesis 6 & 7 is twisted and hoplessly distorted into a religion for atheists, although not unexpected

Right. That horrible atheist conspiracy keeping all that evidence suppressed. :rolleyes:

it's found in "Origin of Species", still the basis of the materialist philosophy 150 years later

It is? Funny that term doesn't show up anywhere in OtOoS when you do a text search. :scratch:

based on the circular reasoning of materialists


Henry Morris. :roll: :roll: :roll:

I'm having a Voltaire moment


I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.

I can totally relate.

Nice article. :roll:

because materialists are embarassed by the book in some cases,

I'm sure that's why the term "Darwinism" doesn't show up in On the Origin of Species.

as I have shown on the previous rx7club thread

Nonsense. The only thing that you've shown is that you're an ignorant blowhard with tired arguments.

nevertheless, Darwin is your (deceased) high priest of the practical atheist faith

YAWN :boring:

interesting, since the evolution of critters takes place as demonstrated by the different layers of fossils, but the actual population of critters at any particular place is variable, the critters have to GET to different spots, and the conditions of the spot has to be good for the critters to live there, we should be astonished that there are "difficulties" in establishing that a particular critter is not found to be in the exact same stage in its evolution everywhere on the planet at the same time ?

or that there might be different evolutionary paths for widely seperated critters that later converge ?

is this your only rebuttal, to scorn the author?

Henry Morris? Henry Freaking Morris? If it were possible to have NEGATIVE CREDIBILITY Henry Morris would be your guy. The "father" of "creation science". :rolleyes:

He's laughed at in his own discipline, so forgive me if I'm not going to listen to his criticisms of modern biology.


it's actually an excellent read

It's a prime example of desperate handwaving, and you slurp it up like a good lap dog.

he is the father of the modern creationist movement, and was a greatly respected man (he recently passed away)

Good riddance.

of course, your camp of demons has nothing but vitriol for him

He's nothing more than a racist hack.

why do you hate the guy?

I hold contempt for liars and scam artists of all persuasions. And hate is too strong a word.

you're full of hate

:roll: Good one. That carries a lot of weight considering the source. :bigthumb:

I'm still waiting for a decent rebuttal to either article on the previous page

Wait all you want. It's inane enough that it doesn't need addressing.

if I don't get one, I'll simply re-post them

Who gives a fuck? It's not like that would be any more annoying than your usual behavior.

Boy you sure showed me. :rolleyes:

I'll think twice now before I hold back on a rebuttal to your ridiculous tripe.

from from "tripe", it is deadly accurate and impossible to refute

"Impossible to refute" :roll:
http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/grail/large/HolyGrail017.jpg

Guess which one you are? :roll:

[far?] from "tripe", it is deadly accurate and impossible to refuteJust FYI, adding melodramatic flourishes doesn't make your opinions any more factual.

However, you would have made a great tonic huckster in the antebellum period. "Good for all that ails ya, including ass-beetles!"

Guess which one you are? :roll:Mark has no sense of humor so he probably hasn't seen the movie. :)

Since that's the case, I'll paraphrase...

MARK: None of your rational thought shall pass.
DREW: What?
MARK: None of your rational thought shall pass.
DREW: I have no quarrel with you, but the account of Genesis is a load of crap.
MARK: Then you shall die.
DREW: I command you to use logic!
MARK: I use my brain for no man.
DREW: So be it!
[DREW chops MARK'S left arm off]

DREW: Now stand aside, douche bag.
MARK: 'Tis but a scratch.
DREW: A scratch? Your arm's off!
MARK: No, it isn't.
DREW: Well, what's that, then? [points to arm laying on the ground]
MARK: I've had worse. I bench 320 pounds, you know.
DREW: You liar!
MARK: Come on, you pussy! But if you show up at my house, I'll blow you away!
[DREW chops MARK'S right arm off]

DREW: Victory is mine!
MARK: Hah! [kick] Come on, then.
DREW: What?
MARK: Have at you! [kick]
DREW: The fight is mine.
MARK: Oh, had enough, eh?
DREW: Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!
MARK: Yes, I have. I bench 320 pounds, you know.
DREW: Look! [points to arms on ground]
MARK: Just a flesh wound. [kick]
DREW: Look, stop that.
MARK: Chicken! [kick] Chickennn!
DREW: Look, I'll have your leg. [kick] Right!
[DREW chops MARK'S right leg off]

MARK: Right. I'll do you for that!
DREW: You'll what?
MARK: Come here!
DREW: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
MARK: My belief in the Lord makes me invincible!
DREW: You're a looney.
MARK: The Lord God always triumphs! Have at you! Come on, then. [whop]
[DREW chops MARK'S last leg off]

MARK: All right, we'll call it a draw.
DREW: Next.
MARK: Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastard! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!

ok

Give the source YZF....
Dr. Henry Morris, the racist YEC. Thats right!

YEC....YEC...YEC....YEC...YEC....YEC...YEC....YEC. ..
YEC....YEC...YEC....YEC...YEC....YEC...YEC....YEC. ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Morris

"The work The Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris has been criticized for taking quotes out of context and completely misquoting sources.[4] For example, in one infamous instance, a source which read "the sea which vanished so many million years ago" was quoted as "the sea which vanished so many years ago."[4]

John G. Solum has criticized the work for being inaccurate.[5] Solum noted "Whitcomb and Morris are mistaken about the nature of the rocks associated with thrust faults. Their claim about fossils is based on a YEC misunderstanding of how rocks are dated relative to each other, and how the geologic column was constructed."[5] In fact Solum noted, "Morris' explanation of relative dating is not "somewhat oversimplified" it is entirely incorrect."[5]

Also, when bringing up Morris' claims of racism in evolutionary thinking, it has been questioned if Morris himself showed racism for asserting that the descendants of Ham "were marked especially for secular service to mankind".[6]

In 1991, Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS) granted the Institute for Creation Research accreditation. This created controversy because the TRACS "board of directors was none other than Henry Morris, founder of ICR."[7] Four years later TRACS' government recognition was put on probation for 18 months until it complied with staff and accreditation changes.

Massimo Pigliucci criticized Morris for heading the ICR, and allowing it to leave out and ignore material from its self-published works that interferes with its "mission" and "beliefs".[8] Pigliucci also criticized Morris' intrepretation of thermodynamics.[9]"



Who are you putting your faith into YZF????

oh I know, it's AIG, so it's "ignorance" *smiles*

I already showed one example of their direct lies when we discussed the hebrew words, marky....so before you go around parroting the same excuses, they HAVE been proven to be dishonest. No amount of complaining or making excuses on your part changes that fact.

oh geez, more baseless smear campaigns

baseless, my ass....you got caught lying more than enough times....your sources have been caught lying too...again, both you and your source were full of shit in the "circle or sphere" issue....baseless?? Not a chance. Dont hate because people use your own words against you....if you didnt lie, no one would be able to show you as a liar.

the Word of God is right....all flapping gums of whimsical men will be put to shame

LOL, who changed your SN???

the Word of God is right....all flapping gums of whimsical men will be put to shame


like your flapping gums when you get caught with your dick in the chicken? Like your flapping gums each time you are forced to change your tune in here because someone comes forth with facts that kill your claims?

In any event, for someone who is supposed to be capable of educating others about God's word, you are up to your neck in your own ass with contradictions....good luck with that:owned:

the Word of God is right....all flapping gums of whimsical men will be put to shame

The Black Knight Always Triumphs! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgQx-ZYwHyA)

the Word of God is right....all flapping gums of whimsical men will be put to shame

So that means that you will be closing up that clap trap of yours soon, huh Marky. You are pretty whimsical yourself there 1/2 man.

from someone on the road to hell

more judgments, I see....let's make this clear right now.

YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY OR KNOWLEDGE AS TO PRECISELY WHO IS ON THE ROAD TO WHERE, SO GET THE FUCK OVER YOURSELF AND YOUR CITY SIZED EGO

any questions? Didnt think so. See ya later, buttercup:gay2:

barring a miracle, you will be damned

I'll be there to see it

how would you be?? lest you forget, when judgment takes place, you will only be there for YOURS.....unless, of course, you now claim to be GOD....is that it? Are you god now, shitstain?

you are clearly on a massive power trip, and in recent threads, that trip has experienced a few flat tires. Better luck next time, asshole

better luck after death, cancerous jonnie

go on, keep showing your true colors....because no "real christian" would take such joy at the prospect of someone's death. Keep it up--your church is gonna have LOTS of questions for you when they read this shit youre constantly spitting out....:bigthumb:

actually, there is praise when God judges the wicked

you don't know the scriptures, mr. demonic

well, since you lie about them constantly to fit yoru own ego, you are not in any position to say anything to anyone.

Physicial, heal thyself.....

touche, bitch:owned:

barring a miracle, you will be damned

I'll be there to see it

Yup, 'cause you're already damned. Sin of Pride, among others.

Keep it up--your church is gonna have LOTS of questions for you when they read this shit youre constantly spitting out...

.......

your team just got raped, jonnie :owned:

bahahahahahahaha


that owns me how, exactly??? The team that plays where you lived struggled just to break even at 8-8 this year, so you saying this is pretty fucking pathetic. Yes, they blew it massively....but in the end, they still did worlds better than Carolina and a lot of other teams there, chief, so stop being such an ignorant ass already.

By the way, what does this have to do with the topic at hand? Oh, it doesnt?? Like I said, youre running out of excuses and it shows. So tell us, what do you think your church will say? You know, when they see how much of a fucktard you've been the whole time you were dishonest to them??:bowdown:

I've never been a Carolina fan, another straw man

your beloved team got raped

my "beloved" team??

Dude, ITS JUST FUCKING FOOTBALL ALREADY.....where the hell do you get your unbelievable imbalance that made this bullshit possible?

I like the team, so what?? Fans of every team except for one will find that their team didnt win the big game, so what the fuck is your point??

Oh yeah, your point is that you are a raving cock holster that cant win an argument with a sock puppet, so you bring shit like this out to try to distract from the reality that you have no intelligent reply to the ass-owning you have received.

Good day, you ignorant douche bag

funny--no one sees any crying at all. I am too busy owning your pathetic ass in a bunch of threads to be crying, marky. Grow the fuck up already.

yep, it sure is clapped out....looks better than your pink FD, thats for certain. Not a scratch on it and a black car shows everything. Clapped out, right....as opposed to your bolt-on queen that you admittedly use to get attention from chicks?? But hey, since you really are single, no harm there I suppose. Then again, some of us dont need a car to get women. Clearly, you would...

http://www.theforumlounge.com/showpost.php?p=124665&postcount=217

:roll:

he thought I put an aftermarket bumper on it, you fuckwit. that was his point--that he doesnt like the bumper. That in no way changes the condition of my car--because a guy on teh intarweb doesnt like the bumper.

your IQ decreases with every new post you make. Pretty soon, you're gonna make an ice cube look gifted....