:smacktalk:

Obviously I'm an atheist. I was born Christian, went to a baptist high school, and learn all about this wonderful fictional guy called Jesus. He seemed pretty cool.

Then I learned about evolution. How it has been proven numerous through a magical thing called the scientific method, which kinda makes a lot more sense then faith. So if evolution = True, then a lot of the old testament goes right out of the window. So I heard a lot of stuff about how the old testament is fables and should not be taken literally, but more of a set of guidelines to live your life by. That didn't make any sense to me...A book written thousands of years ago providing morals and standards for me to live my life by today.

And what about God? I haven't seen a shred of proof that he did/does in fact exist. I have as much evidence of God existing as I do a giant teapot circling Pluto. The Idea of faith seemed pretty stupid to me, and pointless. Why believe in something that you have no evidence is there? I might as well worship the flying spaghetti monster! (Thanks Dawkins)

"Well, why not just believe in God just in case he does exist?" IF, and thats a VERY big if, he does exist then I think a all knowing, all powerful being would be able to see through my false faith. Why live by these guidelines if I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

I'm not saying the bible is all bad. A lot of the messages it gives are pretty good; but these messages are the types of common sense that any decent person will practice on a day to day basis.

I dont know why you're taking this guy's bait :P

You should have just said "Lurk moar" and left it at that :P

open your eyes...evidence of Design is ubiquitous in nature

Darwinism has nothing to do with the origin of anything

you can start with this thread, several good links there
http://www.theforumlounge.com/thread9555-man-tries-to-emulate-the-ultimate-nano-engineer.html

I see 3 organisms which you have provided that may (I haven't looked into these) be considered irreducible.

I could give you thousands upon thousands of examples of organisms that are reducible. The evidence is clearly in favor of evolution. How can you deny it when we can see examples today with our own eyes? More and more people are being born each day without wisdom teeth. Women are being born with less body hair. We are adapting and evolving.

If we are breaking down parts I think we should be talking about quarks and leptons, Which are even smaller units of matter then the atom. Didn't everyone think that the smallest unit was a cell at one point? Then an atom? Now these. Seems like science is proving new things everyday, things that explain the universe in the properties of a equation. From everything being broken down to the point of nothing what do you hope to find? "Made in Heaven - Love JC". From all the evidence that science has provided, no thats very doubtful. All evidence is pointing to a set mathematical equation that defines the nature of the cosmos, not a supreme being (who was created from nothing? who designed this God?) who knows everything, and has planned everything in the universe regardless of the fact freewill somehow does not affect his plan.

btw, I'd like to see the stats on the wisdom teeth argument, haven't heard that one

http://www.malkemusdds.com/articles.aspx?id=40

I can't find any stats, but it is a relatively small percentage (probably why there are no studies). Regardless people are being born without them and the dentist community acknowledges it as a evolutionary shift due the humans not requiring them.

"science" (frail human understanding of the physical universe) is not the be-all, end-all..."science" is not the god, science is a means to an end...science, properly applied, leads one to God, and increases our appreciation of His genius

Please enlighten me of evidence of the "Non-physical universe". So far, in my lifetime, I have seen nothing but a physical universe which can be explained. Ghosts? Souls? Afterlife? <---No proof.


another very common rebuttal...God is eternal and transcends the physical dimension of man and "science"...God existed before anything physical was created

See above.


no, they are assuming it's a "shift", they don't know...they probably have 50 years of time trend data, at best, which is hardly enough to make any grand pronouncements about 'evolutionary change'


True, I'll give you that, yet evolution would be the most logical explanation.


you sound like Richard Dawkins...

:smokin: Bithcin'. I'll take that as a compliment.

I'm not implying a non-physical universe, you misread my post,

God is eternal and transcends the physical dimension of man

frail human understanding of the physical universe) is not the be-all, end-all...

:question:

I'm just saying that is the realm of humanity and science

Can you elaborate on this, I am confused.

it cannot be observed, measured, or quantified, at least not in this life


This is the aspect of faith that I find absurd.

Back to the celestial teapot. If I told someone that the universe is encapsulated within a giant teapot they would laugh at me. Yet I tell another person when I die my "soul" will be transfered to another dimension...maybe they will listen. Both have no real proof to back up its claims, yet one is somewhat accepted as truth throughout the world. Why?

Well it's a pretty scary thought to be dead. No one wants to have their life end; it is basic human instinct: self preservation, and what better way to cheat death then to believe that if you follow some guidelines you will be rewarded with eternal bliss/66 virgins/endless buckets of beer/:boobies: whatever ect. That sounds way more appealing then death.

To me it sounds like my parents telling me to be good or Santa Clause won't bring me a present. :bssmile:

ZOMG! Welcome chronobasher! Hope you enjoy your stay with us.

similarly, you must have faith to believe nobody x nothing = the universe and bacteria morph into human beings


Maybe, but I can see the process of things morphing. Seems like a way more likely explanation then a spirit realm with a man in the sky tallying everyones rap sheet.

The more probable explanation is the right one the majority of the time.

ZOMG! Welcome chronobasher! Hope you enjoy your stay with us.

Thank you. Will do. :bigthumb:

wolves, coyotes, dingoes, jackals, foxes, and the hundreds of different domestic dog breeds probably all came from an original pair of "dogs". This is "Variation within a Kind," NOT upward evolution from simplicity into complexity as supposed by Darwin's theory of evolution.


This is completely incorrect.

Take the example of bears. We have tons of different types of bears throughout the world. They all have most likely evolved from some basic bear form, but due to their enviorment they evolved to survive within it. Thats why there are polar bears in the arctic and black bears in the US. The same can be applied to the dog example above. The survival of the fittest must factor in the enviorment that the organism is within.

I was providing a example showing how traits are gained trough the environment and the organism is improved, therefore showing that genetic information is not lost, only improved. I'm not sure why you think I am not reading your post.

Also, the post above is implying that mutation is common, which it is not.

In response to their being zero fossil evidence of bacteria to the next step, no as I said before there is no hard fossil evidence. But the amount evidence that we have to support the evolution an time line http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution
is much much greater then the God theory, which therefore makes it the logical option to believe in.

It doesn't take much faith when I can see a chain of organisms. That makes logical sense to me. Man in the sky doesn't.

why?

because "millions of years" sounds impressive



No. Because it's true.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#howold

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.





the "chain" is all in your head, it does not exist in the fossil record and there is no evidence for it



Huh?

http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html


Although it was Darwin, above all others, who first marshaled convincing evidence for biological evolution, earlier scholars had recognized that organisms on Earth had changed systematically over long periods of time. For example, in 1799 an engineer named William Smith reported that, in undisrupted layers of rock, fossils occurred in a definite sequential order, with more modern-appearing ones closer to the top. Because bottom layers of rock logically were laid down earlier and thus are older than top layers, the sequence of fossils also could be given a chronology from oldest to youngest. His findings were confirmed and extended in the 1830s by the paleontologist William Lonsdale, who recognized that fossil remains of organisms from lower strata were more primitive than the ones above. Today, many thousands of ancient rock deposits have been identified that show corresponding successions of fossil organisms.
--------
Earth do we find, for example, mammals in Devonian (the age of fishes) strata, or human fossils coexisting with dinosaur remains. Undisturbed strata with simple unicellular organisms predate those with multicellular organisms, and invertebrates precede vertebrates; nowhere has this sequence been found inverted. Fossils from adjacent strata are more similar than fossils from temporally distant strata. The most reasonable scientific conclusion that can be drawn from the fossil record is that descent with modification has taken place as stated in evolutionary theory.


Looks like a chain to me.

what a crock...there are no transitional forms whatsoever...ZERO


Again, you didn't even read the article so here is a highlight.

"For example, in 1799 an engineer named William Smith reported that, in undisrupted layers of rock, fossils occurred in a definite sequential order, with more modern-appearing ones closer to the top. Because bottom layers of rock logically were laid down earlier and thus are older than top layers, the sequence of fossils also could be given a chronology from oldest to youngest. His findings were confirmed and extended in the 1830s by the paleontologist William Lonsdale, who recognized that fossil remains of organisms from lower strata were more primitive than the ones above. Today, many thousands of ancient rock deposits have been identified that show corresponding successions of fossil organisms."


Thousands of examples, gut you would rather plug your ears and close your eyes to this evidence.

So the sedimentary rock shows a clear record of how organisms progressed.

If it was a flood event, like you always want to parrot, then the rock should show mixed up organisms on every different level. Fact is you cannot prove it and there is more evidence supporting these vast epochs than your 6000 years with a flood.

talkorigins :roll:

radiometric dating methods are highly erratic and essentially worthless, furthermore the inherent decay rate assumptions cannot possibly be verified



http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only1% or so.

In response to...

inherent decay rate assumptions cannot possibly be verified

This is tantamount to claiming that the gravity of the Earth might have been 5 times stronger in medieval times, or that the boiling point of water might have been a thousand degrees a century ago. The decay rates of radioisotopes are driven by the quantum mechanics of barrier tunneling and the relative strengths of coulomb repulsion and nuclear binding energy which drive all nuclear interactions. If they were to change, this would mean that the characteristics of fundamental particles and forces are changing, which means that the behaviour of all matter in the universe is in a state of flux. Moreover, since they claim the Earth is just 6,000 years old, these sweeping changes would have been occurring right before our eyes, during recorded history!

Why, then, do Egyptian pyramids built 4500 years ago still stand? How did a 4800 year old California Bristlecone Pine tree (nicknamed "Methuselah") survive? Changes in physical constants such as the electric charge of electrons and protons or the strength of the nuclear binding force would have changed the fundamental behaviour of matter. Let's imagine that electromagnetism was much stronger in the past; this would help pry apart nuclei faster, thus increasing the rate of radioactive decay. However, it would also make solid objects stronger and more rigid, it would make fire burn hotter, it would change the melting points and densities of all materials, it would increase the coulomb barrier for nuclear fusion in the Sun (thus cooling and dimming it to the point that we would have frozen to death), it would drastically alter the electrochemical reactions used in living organisms, and that's just the tip of the iceberg! Alternatively, let's suppose that the strong nuclear force was much weaker in the past. This would also increase decay rates, with similarly severe side-effects. Large elements would become more radioactive, thus greatly increasing the background radiation and producing anomalous low mass radioisotopes. Worse yet, the binding energy of nuclei would be much smaller, so the energy yield of nuclear fusion would be much lower and the ancient Sun would have been so cool and dim that the Earth would have been a dark, frozen, barren rock.

Still think that radioactive decay rates might have been fluctuating wildly over the last 6,000 years? If so, you are obviously vulnerable to pseudoscience, and you must be a YEC. Have yourself committed to a mental institution right now. If not, read on. Did you ever notice that the YEC's propose alternate explanations for physical phenomena without bothering to crunch numbers? This does not sound particularly scientific to me; it's analogous to claiming that an arrow points in the right direction without bothering to show that it's long enough to reach the target.

So why don't we crunch the numbers for them? They like to say that we've only been measuring decay rates for a century or so, which isn't long enough to notice slow changes in decay rates that take billions of years to become significant. But they're forgetting something: they don't have billions of years. They claim that everything happened in just six thousand years, remember? Let's assign the variable µ to the current rate of decay of some radioisotope, and let's say it's been steadily dropping since Day One. If a 6,000 year old rock looks like it's 3.8 billion years old, this would suggest that its decay rate started off at more than 1¼ million times µ, and dropped at a rate of 1µ every 42 hours! We've been measuring decay rates for a long time now; have we detected such dramatic changes? Take a wild guess. We've also been observing the effects of faraway stars and supernovae which are far more ancient, and do they show any signs of these dramatic changes? Again, take a wild guess.

http://www.creationtheory.org/YoungEarth/Hartman-2.shtml

In response to the Grand Canyon fiasco...

Criticism of ICR's claims

* This was not a "test" of Rb-Sr dating.

It is misleading for Austin to claim that he set out to "test" Rb/Sr isochron dating. The paper trail -- the 1988 Impact article -- documents that Austin knew he'd get a mantle age from whole-rock measurements of those lava flows, long before the ICR obtained a single rock sample of their own.

If isotopic dating methods are as unreliable as Austin would like us to believe, why did he have to rig his test -- by only selecting rock samples which were known in advance to fail it? If a mainstream scientist were to fix a test in this manner, their reputation would be demolished when that fact was uncovered.

* The wrong meaning is assigned to the dates.

Before the Grand Canyon Dating Project began, in his 1988 Impact article, Austin admitted in print that the selected lava flows fell into two different stratigraphic stages. That is, the very information which he used to select the flows, also clearly indicates that they did not all occur at the same time. In his subsequent book (1994, p. 125), Austin indicated that his five data points came from four different lava flows plus an extracted "phenocryst" (large mineral which likely formed in the magma chamber and was not molten in the lava flow). We had known from the Impact articles that Austin's samples were not all cogenetic; years later we found out by his own admission that no two of them are so.

In fact, as discussed above, the selection of non-cogenetic samples is sometimes used intentionally by isotope geologists. It is known to be a way to have an isochron dating method "look back" beyond a recent event to an earlier event -- the age of the common source of the samples. Thus, it is misleading for Austin to pretend that his resulting isochron plot should be expected to represent the age of the flows themselves.

A geologist in my acquaintance suggested that this FAQ should be very short:

It should merely state that Austin has confirmed what mainstream geologists have known all along: that the lithospheric mantle underlying the Grand Canyon must be older than the Cardenas Basalt.

The mantle is the source of much of the sampled flows' material, and Austin's sampling technique matches the technique one would use to obtain a minimum for the age of the flows' source.

* It's an insufficient case against isotope dating.

Austin (1992) suggests that he has "tested" the dating method. He claims that the false isochron, that he knew would result, is "unexpected." He goes as far as implying that all isotopic ages can be ignored when he suggests that nobody has ever "successfully dated a Grand Canyon rock." The first two claims are falsehoods, as shown above, and the third cannot be justified by ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project.

Young-Earth creationists cannot escape the fact that a large majority of isotope dating results are well-aligned with mainstream predictions, and equally well-aligned with geological relationships which even young-earthers would accept. For example, intrusive formations consistently date as being younger than the formations that they cut across. A laundry-list of anomalous dates will not change that fact. That only shows that the methods sometimes fail, which is not in dispute.

If Austin wishes to make a case that all isotopic results are unreliable (which he desires to do, in order to prop up the timescale that he accepts for religious reasons), he is going to have to do better than he has done here. All the ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project shows is that a sample selection geared to yield the age of the flows' source... apparently does yield the age of the flows' source.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html

again, the long age model is just that: a model...it's not science

the fossils are not dated, the rocks are dated, using radio methods proven to be wildly erratic

therefore, the layers they believe represent vast imaginary epochs in fact represent rapid deposition

That doesn't answer the question.....
Then how come the fossils in the rock aren't jumbled up?

Come on quit dodging the question, you know what context I am talking about...enough with the tap dance.

chief, I know you're a 17 year old with tons of enthusiasm for your belief system (after all, "proving" God doesn't exist is so much fun! :rolleyes:) and a fast google finger, but don't waste my time with the talk origins crapola, I've heard this stuff many times before in my six years on these forums, you really have no idea
No worryies chronos. when you've been here long enough, you'll realize that YZF statement here means you have cornered him and he has given up as fast as the French military.

the so-called "order" is highly exaggerated, for one thing

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fossils.asp
‘Everybody knows that organisms ... get more complex as they evolve.’ ‘The only trouble with what everyone knows, says McShea, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan, is that there is no evidence it's true.’

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/fossil.asp

and furthermore, like I said, simpler life would tend to be buried and encapsulated first, while more intelligent animals would escape to high ground...human fossils are exceedingly rare, and you would expect to find millions upon millions of them in the record (incluing plenty of "ape men"/hominids) if the darwin fairy tale was really true

Anyone hear a squawking parrot??
like I said
So now you are the author of all of this?

You can post as many examples from that YEC site as you want, but we all know that they are biased and take things out of context all of the time. On top of that, they tell you what to think at the end of every article, based on speculation.


So lets see, there was a flood that was so traumatic and such a deluge that it cause a rapid deposition of layers of sediment. So the force alone as you claim would have to be incredible enough to create the grand canyon, and all of the layers of strata that you claim. But it was also slow enough so that higher levels of living organisms could out run it....

Right....this is such a contradiction it isn't even funny. Face it, your house of cards just fell. Are you smoking something????


BTW...its including not 'incluing'

chief, I know you're a 17 year old with tons of enthusiasm for your belief system (after all, "proving" God doesn't exist is so much fun! :rolleyes:) and a fast google finger, but don't waste my time with the talk origins crapola, I've heard this stuff many times before in my six years on these forums, you really have no idea

:smacktalk:

21.

Personal attacks are cool, but I think it only shows that when a person challenges your belief and you are afraid. I view this as a learning experience and nothing more, Because you are right, I DO have faith; but this is not the issue.

The issue is which can be considered a real logical answer.

And to brighten the mood I post Cats!

http://www.veryfunnycats.info/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/funny-dancing-cats.jpg

http://www.jasonleecooksey.com/images/funnycats/xmen.jpg

http://www.lies.com/wp/images/2007/04/monorailcat.jpg

but God delights in showing the "smart guys" of this world to be fools

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
lol aww Paul so dumdum and angst

lol aww Paul so dumdum and angst

Think about what you're saying. What do you know about Paul? Here is a man who really had it. He was "the Man". He was a Pharisee and his job was to persecute the followers of Christ. He loved it and was very successful at it. Then the "Truth" hit him and turned his world upside down. You could say he must have been a lunatic. Look at what he did. He endured all sorts of sufferings you could never go through to promote a Gospel that he had unquestionably been changed by. He could have easily said this aint worth it yet time and again he kept with it. If you think he's a lunatic I challenge you to read all of his epistles. If you open your mind to the possiblity that God's truth lies in them, you will be changed. How can I say this? Because I know it to be true. God's word is alive and powerful and able to change men. You may say you lack faith. Faith is a gift from God and one of the ways it is given is by hearing (or reading) the Bible.

Think about what you're saying. What do you know about Paul? Here is a man who really had it. He was "the Man". He was a Pharisee and his job was to persecute the followers of Christ. He loved it and was very successful at it. Then the "Truth" hit him and turned his world upside down. You could say he must have been a lunatic. Look at what he did. He endured all sorts of sufferings you could never go through to promote a Gospel that he had unquestionably been changed by. He could have easily said this aint worth it yet time and again he kept with it. If you think he's a lunatic I challenge you to read all of his epistles. If you open your mind to the possiblity that God's truth lies in them, you will be changed. How can I say this? Because I know it to be true. God's word is alive and powerful and able to change men. You may say you lack faith. Faith is a gift from God and one of the ways it is given is by hearing (or reading) the Bible.

Paul is a driven creature latched to power. Part of the book of Romans that YZF posted is just Paul's view that humanity will be lost without the gospel. :drooling:

Mother Teresa comes to mind when going out to preach faith. She seemed to find a peaceful way without getting arrested. But since she fell out of favor with this xtain band, I guess she doesn't deserve due attention over Paul.

Paul is a driven creature latched to power. Part of the book of Romans that YZF posted is just Paul's view that humanity will be lost without the gospel. :drooling:

Mother Teresa comes to mind when going out to preach faith. She seemed to find a peaceful way without getting arrested. But since she fell out of favor with this xtain band, I guess she doesn't deserve due attention over Paul.

Mother Teresa has nothing on Paul. And even Paul wasn't the greatest man ever born. In fact no man born of a woman is greater than John the Baptist and the least in heaven is greater than him. How ya feelin' now?

God does not exist FTW! I can't believe a god exists and lets so much shit go on in the world. This may not be the best put forth arguement, but neither is the existence of god.

God does not exist FTW! I can't believe a god exists and lets so much shit go on in the world. This may not be the best put forth arguement, but neither is the existence of god.

Oh, is that so! Which god is it that you don't believe in because of all the poopy that's going on in the world? Hindu gods? Allah? David Koresh? Reverend Moon? How's about you check out the Bible for yourself and see if the crap that's going on all over the world isn't exactly how it's described?

So the Bible predicted events that would take place many years later? MAGIC!

God...if you exist, put a damn Porsche 911 Turbo S in my garage.

Still No Porsche :-\

Still No Porsche :-\

Maybe it's a hint that you should read what God said about prayer.

god spoke?

Maybe it's a hint that you should read what God said about prayer.
Did he sound anything like James Earl Jones?

"Come to the Dark Side Luke."

Mother Teresa has nothing on Paul. And even Paul wasn't the greatest man ever born. In fact no man born of a woman is greater than John the Baptist and the least in heaven is greater than him. How ya feelin' now?
I'm feeling pretty good. So you think a guy, who pees in the water that he dunks people in, is greater? Maybe I should start to take a shit on the toilet seat and force my kids to clean it up. Is it greatness I sense in me? Maybe I'll give each of you xtains a swirly. Starting in NC.

at the end of the day, if I'm right, you have everything to lose...if you're right, it has no effect on my life whatsoever



"Well, why not just believe in God just in case he does exist?" IF, and thats a VERY big if, he does exist then I think a all knowing, all powerful being would be able to see through my false faith. Why live by these guidelines if I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't

Until I can truly be convinced I see no reason to start living my life differently.

and you're just one of billions of people who are no different, most of whom will be rejected



Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"

But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Thomas doubted, and was still saved!
So the Lord saves by both witness and faith. Glad you have faith skidMarked, and hopefully, because of Chrono's standpoint, Jesus will show Himself in a way that will restore Chrono's faith.

I want to touch jesus.

I said "most", not "all"

Yes but your post points out your true nature that you secretly wish everyone to be damned.

Jesus still forgave Thomas, and showed Himself to Thomas so that he would still believe.

You on the other hand, love to point out how everyone will be 'rejected'. Is that Christ like there skidMarked? Is that the example the Jesus was showing in the passage you quoted? You talk about people being 'outside'. I have no doubt that you are in the cold too with your two sided posts.

nonsense, or I wouldn't even be here

but I do bristle at some little punk kid who thinks the world owes him something, that it's anyone's job to convince him of anything...it's not

John the Baptist called people to repent, he didn't appeal to their philosophical gyrations

You call what you post here 'witnessing'??? Don't do God any favors then...

And the only person who acts like a 'kid' around here, and it is provable, is yourself.... (yea quote/change that line, little punk, you'll prove my point)

Who is the true 'little punk' around here? By your own admission you said you were getting fat off your moms cooking, are that much of a mommas boy? Dang, at 40 yrs old I would of thought you would have cut the cord by now....grow up there skidMarked.

This thread title alone speaks volume. Sending it to the top.

I'm worthless,

We all know that....

and you really need to post a pic

Hell bent, as usual, in order to get one chance to ridicule me, by any means ....aren't you there skidMarked? You motive is too clear.

I want to see what a geek you are, after all the smack you throw out

btw, I'm in better shape than you'll ever be

:rolleyes: with all of that visceral fat you have? Right....go on and continue to fool yourself there skidMarked. Seems that women are beating down a path to your door....BTW hows that 23 yr old doing? :blah:

Take this tripe to the smack talk thread fool.

visceral fat?

What do you have a memory of a ground squirrel???

http://www.theforumlounge.com/showpost.php?p=143045&postcount=23

it's anyone's job to convince him of anything...it's not


...

25 And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters;
-Mosiah 27: 25

3 And it shall come to pass that they shall go forth into the regions round about, and preach repentance unto the people.
4 And many shall be converted, insomuch that ye shall obtain power to organize yourselves according to the laws of man;
-D&C 44: 3-4

so I finally visited smacktalk, no god there too.

:smacktalk:

<atheist fabrication deleted>


Thanks for sharing your viewpoint with us, and I do hope that you participate in some of our discussions about the Lord Jesus, who died for our sins, God's only begotten son, the Lamb who bore the guilt of all humanity.

Fear the LORD, and you shall survive. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom. Who created the universe? He, who is above all time, space, heaven and hell is the righteous Owner and Keeper of all which was created.

Love the LORD with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind, and love your neighbor as if he were yourself. There are no greater commandments than these.

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint with us, and I do hope that you participate in some of our discussions about the Lord Jesus, who died for our sins, God's only begotten son, the Lamb who bore the guilt of all humanity.

Fear the LORD, and you shall survive. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom. Who created the universe? He, who is above all time, space, heaven and hell is the righteous Owner and Keeper of all which was created.

Love the LORD with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind, and love your neighbor as if he were yourself. There are no greater commandments than these.

I like how a potential convert is told to FEAR and LOVE God, like the two were synonymous. Last time I checked it was pretty hard to feel fear about something you loved or vice versa.

Anyway, thank you for the message, it all sounds great and mystical, but I will save my excursions from reality for when I want to play video games. (Black & White; that's an on topic game! Nothing more fun then playing God!)

That game got really old really fast.

I like how a potential convert is told to FEAR and LOVE God, like the two were synonymous. Last time I checked it was pretty hard to feel fear about something you loved or vice versa.




I fear horsepower, and simultaneously love pulling nearly a full g in first gear.

I fear drowning, but still love to swim.

I fear a broken heart, but still love women.

And I fear the Wrath of God, yet love His perfect Will, and only Begotten Son.