BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

Full story: Chicago Tribune

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...
Comments
140,381 - 140,400 of 177,513 Comments Last updated 10 min ago

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#159871 Jun 15, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, the point was that even the **mythical** Santa and his sleigh could not collect all the species on earth. Duh!
So you believe in the warp speed ark that could collect every species of fowl on the earth and return all of the mating pairs to their original habitat after the forty days and forty nights rain?
Eh?
Who said the Santa story was biblical? MORON!
<quoted text>
Sorry, I don't buy that. I question the 'world' flood, that every species of animal were carried on an ark, etc. I believe much of the early Old Testament is allegorical.
But I do believe that the Earth is both about 6,000 God years old and at the same time about 6.5 billion Earth years old.
And I believe in divine design.
Oh, have you looked at the Sphinx? Did you know that when the modern Egyptians discovered the Sphinx some 5,500 years ago it was buried up to it's neck in the sand. And if you look the body has up and down erosion probably caused by lots and lots of rain while the head has minor.
There are some that think that the original Sphinx was carved about ten thousand years ago during the last Great Ice Age and that at the end of the Ice Age it rained for forty YEARS which would explain the vertical erosion. And when the Egyptians recarved the head from a weathered lions head to a smaller head of a Egyptian pharaoh and that the put a veneer of brinks around the bottom.
And that they have trees in the Sahara that are over 8,000 years old but no newer trees. Why? Well after the Ice Age and the rain, the water table slowly dropped and the existing trees grew longer roots to reach the water where no new trees would take root because of the lack of enough moisture in the upper soils.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#159872 Jun 15, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
There is evidence to support a great flood. Whether you wish you to accept it or not is entire up to you. The evidence shows that you are incorrect.
You have a serious problem with the scientific method. According to the scientific method, a hypothesis should reliably predict. If a prediction according to a hypothesis is found false, it falsifies the hypothesis. According to the great flood story in the bible, all of the earth was covered, literally covered by water, which is impossible. Furthermore, all land species of animals would have perished, and would have been replenished from the specimens saved by Noe. However, if that were true, all species would show evidence of a most extreme population bottleneck a ~5000 years ago. Sorry loser, it didnít happen. The evidence proves your fable to be a fantasy.

The mass die-off predicted by the 'great flood' hypothesis never happened, and the evidence conclusively shows it didn't happen.

That means UR FOS. It means UR pissing in the wind.

Now go and get an education, moron.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#159873 Jun 15, 2013
I wish I knew if either of my two senators attended!

The Majority of Senate Skipped a Classified PRISM Briefing

There was a classified meeting for Senators wanting to learn more about the National Security Agency's PRISM program from the top security officials, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and NSA chief Keith Alexander, but attendance was sparse. Less than half of the Senate attended the meeting. "Only 47 of 100 senators attended the 2:30 briefing, leaving dozens of chairs in the secure meeting room empty," the Hill reports. The only senator who confirmed their attendance was Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein. She really had no choice, given her position, and she was furious about the low turnout. "Itís hard to get this story out. Even now we have this big briefing ó weíve got Alexander, weíve got the FBI, weíve got the Justice Department, we have the FISA Court there, we have Clapper there ó and people are leaving," she told the Hill. So that's one name down ó only 99 more to go.
http://news.yahoo.com/majority-senate-skipped...

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#159874 Jun 15, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
Sorry, loser, a big flood in the State of Washington is not evidence of a deluge that submerged the entire earth.

Get real.

"and I will destroy every substance that I have made, from the face of the earth."

Fecking moron.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but "Dick and Jane find the Ark" is not evidence.
Soreeeee.
After the alleged flood all species were repopulated by small founder populations?
Didn't happen, loser. The evidence is conclusive.
That is unless the Divine Merry Prankster re-engineered the DNA in all species as a divine merry joke.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#159876 Jun 15, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a serious problem with the scientific method. According to the scientific method, a hypothesis should reliably predict. If a prediction according to a hypothesis is found false, it falsifies the hypothesis. According to the great flood story in the bible, all of the earth was covered, literally covered by water, which is impossible. Furthermore, all land species of animals would have perished, and would have been replenished from the specimens saved by Noe. However, if that were true, all species would show evidence of a most extreme population bottleneck a ~5000 years ago. Sorry loser, it didnít happen. The evidence proves your fable to be a fantasy.
The mass die-off predicted by the 'great flood' hypothesis never happened, and the evidence conclusively shows it didn't happen.
That means UR FOS. It means UR pissing in the wind.
Now go and get an education, moron.
I'm sorry this "new" information is so hard on you. The evidence speaks for itself. You take things too literally. That is why you can't see the forest. You're too busy looking at one piece of bark on one tree, oblivious to the forest that surrounds you. But, that's your choice.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#159877 Jun 15, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, loser, a big flood in the State of Washington is not evidence of a deluge that submerged the entire earth.
Get real.
"and I will destroy every substance that I have made, from the face of the earth."
Fecking moron.
<quoted text>
Are you angry with God, my friend?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#159878 Jun 15, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, I don't buy that. I question the 'world' flood, that every species of animal were carried on an ark, etc. I believe much of the early Old Testament is allegorical.
But I do believe that the Earth is both about 6,000 God years old and at the same time about 6.5 billion Earth years old.
And I believe in divine design.
Oh, have you looked at the Sphinx? Did you know that when the modern Egyptians discovered the Sphinx some 5,500 years ago it was buried up to it's neck in the sand. And if you look the body has up and down erosion probably caused by lots and lots of rain while the head has minor.
There are some that think that the original Sphinx was carved about ten thousand years ago during the last Great Ice Age and that at the end of the Ice Age it rained for forty YEARS which would explain the vertical erosion. And when the Egyptians recarved the head from a weathered lions head to a smaller head of a Egyptian pharaoh and that the put a veneer of brinks around the bottom.
And that they have trees in the Sahara that are over 8,000 years old but no newer trees. Why? Well after the Ice Age and the rain, the water table slowly dropped and the existing trees grew longer roots to reach the water where no new trees would take root because of the lack of enough moisture in the upper soils.
Wow. So you don't believe in the ark myth.

And the rest of your tangential rant has a point?
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, the point was that even the **mythical** Santa and his sleigh could not collect all the species on earth. Duh!
So you believe in the warp speed ark that could collect every species of fowl on the earth and return all of the mating pairs to their original habitat after the forty days and forty nights rain?
Eh?
Who said the Santa story was biblical? MORON!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#159879 Jun 15, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry this "new" information is so hard on you. The evidence speaks for itself. You take things too literally. That is why you can't see the forest. You're too busy looking at one piece of bark on one tree, oblivious to the forest that surrounds you. But, that's your choice.
Sorry, but the the conclusions presented in "Dick and Jane find the Ark" don't stand up to reality.

And by the way, a hypothesis should predict accurately, not metaphorically.

Specifically, if there were a great flood that wiped out all land species per the bible, then all land species would show an EXTREME population bottleneck in their DNA traced to the same time period. SORRY LOSER, FALSE. FECKING FALSE AND DELUSIONAL.

I'm really sorry if you think 'FALSE' is "too literal." Perhaps "pissing in the wind" would help you understand your folly?
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a serious problem with the scientific method. According to the scientific method, a hypothesis should reliably predict. If a prediction according to a hypothesis is found false, it falsifies the hypothesis. According to the great flood story in the bible, all of the earth was covered, literally covered by water, which is impossible. Furthermore, all land species of animals would have perished, and would have been replenished from the specimens saved by Noe. However, if that were true, all species would show evidence of a most extreme population bottleneck a ~5000 years ago. Sorry loser, it didnít happen. The evidence proves your fable to be a fantasy.
The mass die-off predicted by the 'great flood' hypothesis never happened, and the evidence conclusively shows it didn't happen.
That means UR FOS. It means UR pissing in the wind.
Now go and get an education, moron.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#159880 Jun 15, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you angry with God, my friend?
Huh?

"and I will destroy every substance that I have made, from the face of the earth."

Please point to the evidence that every substance was destroyed, save of the heroic efforts of Noah.

MORON.

Every mating pair of warbler in the Amazon was saved by Noah? RU daft?
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, loser, a big flood in the State of Washington is not evidence of a deluge that submerged the entire earth.
Get real.
"and I will destroy every substance that I have made, from the face of the earth."
Fecking moron.
Frank

Spokane, WA

#159881 Jun 15, 2013
Ben Ghazi wrote:
<quoted text>
you funny guy. you make me laugh, ha ha ha.
Funding terrorism is not funny.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#159882 Jun 15, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but the the conclusions presented in "Dick and Jane find the Ark" don't stand up to reality.
And by the way, a hypothesis should predict accurately, not metaphorically.
Specifically, if there were a great flood that wiped out all land species per the bible, then all land species would show an EXTREME population bottleneck in their DNA traced to the same time period. SORRY LOSER, FALSE. FECKING FALSE AND DELUSIONAL.
I'm really sorry if you think 'FALSE' is "too literal." Perhaps "pissing in the wind" would help you understand your folly?
<quoted text>
I've told you about 18 times now, have it your way. Why do you insist on behaving like a little brat who didn't get their way? Again, that's your choice. You sound really angry. Are you angry with God, my friend?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#159883 Jun 15, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry this "new" information is so hard on you. The evidence speaks for itself. You take things too literally. That is why you can't see the forest. You're too busy looking at one piece of bark on one tree, oblivious to the forest that surrounds you. But, that's your choice.
Wowee Zowee! The scientific method is "too literal".

If a stupid asinine hypothesis can't pass muster, then it is was interpreted "too literally". Sorry, metaphor is not part of the scientific method. The simple fact is if the great flood as described in the bible were true, the DNA evidence would be consistent with that hypothetical event. Sorry loser, never happened.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a serious problem with the scientific method. According to the scientific method, a hypothesis should reliably predict. If a prediction according to a hypothesis is found false, it falsifies the hypothesis. According to the great flood story in the bible, all of the earth was covered, literally covered by water, which is impossible. Furthermore, all land species of animals would have perished, and would have been replenished from the specimens saved by Noe. However, if that were true, all species would show evidence of a most extreme population bottleneck a ~5000 years ago. Sorry loser, it didnít happen. The evidence proves your fable to be a fantasy.
The mass die-off predicted by the 'great flood' hypothesis never happened, and the evidence conclusively shows it didn't happen.
That means UR FOS. It means UR pissing in the wind.
Now go and get an education, moron.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#159884 Jun 15, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I've told you about 18 times now, have it your way. Why do you insist on behaving like a little brat who didn't get their way? Again, that's your choice. You sound really angry. Are you angry with God, my friend?
Who cares what you "told me" when your conclusions and premises are false?

Now please explain how despite the genetic diversity of all animals on the planet being inconsistent with the 'great flood' fable, "Dick and Jane find the Ark" proves otherwise.

Fecking moron.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but the the conclusions presented in "Dick and Jane find the Ark" don't stand up to reality.
And by the way, a hypothesis should predict accurately, not metaphorically.
Specifically, if there were a great flood that wiped out all land species per the bible, then all land species would show an EXTREME population bottleneck in their DNA traced to the same time period. SORRY LOSER, FALSE. FECKING FALSE AND DELUSIONAL.
I'm really sorry if you think 'FALSE' is "too literal." Perhaps "pissing in the wind" would help you understand your folly?
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#159885 Jun 15, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Wowee Zowee! The scientific method is "too literal".
If a stupid asinine hypothesis can't pass muster, then it is was interpreted "too literally". Sorry, metaphor is not part of the scientific method. The simple fact is if the great flood as described in the bible were true, the DNA evidence would be consistent with that hypothetical event. Sorry loser, never happened.
<quoted text>
I only said "you" were too literal. It's a amazing what you take from a post. That anger will only destroy you. Again, that's your choice.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#159886 Jun 15, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares what you "told me" when your conclusions and premises are false?
Now please explain how despite the genetic diversity of all animals on the planet being inconsistent with the 'great flood' fable, "Dick and Jane find the Ark" proves otherwise.
Fecking moron.
<quoted text>
No one is speaking of genetics except you. I posted only about geological evidence that does support a great flood theory. Now, look back at my posts, you'll find no mention of Noah, animals or genetics. Where did you fall off the tracks? BTW, what is "fecking"?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#159887 Jun 15, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I only said "you" were too literal. It's a amazing what you take from a post. That anger will only destroy you. Again, that's your choice.
Sorry loser, the scientific method is not metaphorical. Your fantasy failed. Would you prefer a metaphorical explanation? If so, there are
many fictional works to satisfy your cravings. But that's not science.
Loser.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Wowee Zowee! The scientific method is "too literal".
If a stupid asinine hypothesis can't pass muster, then it is was interpreted "too literally". Sorry, metaphor is not part of the scientific method. The simple fact is if the great flood as described in the bible were true, the DNA evidence would be consistent with that hypothetical event. Sorry loser, never happened.
<quoted text>
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#159888 Jun 15, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry loser, the scientific method is not metaphorical. Your fantasy failed. Would you prefer a metaphorical explanation? If so, there are
many fictional works to satisfy your cravings. But that's not science.
Loser.
<quoted text>
What does that have to do with you being "too" literal?
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#159889 Jun 15, 2013
Wojar, perhaps you're simply stressed out? Too much work in the lab, maybe?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#159892 Jun 15, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
What does that have to do with you being "too" literal?
Sorry, if your proposition fails, it fails.

The evidence is not metaphorical. If your fantasy were true, about the biblical flood, then the DNA evidence would be consistent with your fantasy. Sorry, it proves you're pissing in the wind.
FALSIFIED is too literal?

Grow up.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry loser, the scientific method is not metaphorical. Your fantasy failed. Would you prefer a metaphorical explanation? If so, there are
many fictional works to satisfy your cravings. But that's not science.
Loser.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#159894 Jun 15, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, if your proposition fails, it fails.
The evidence is not metaphorical. If your fantasy were true, about the biblical flood, then the DNA evidence would be consistent with your fantasy. Sorry, it proves you're pissing in the wind.
FALSIFIED is too literal?
Grow up.
<quoted text>
Sorry, the geological evidence says differently. You're geologically challenged and that's ok. Believe what you want.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Patrick 1,101,140
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 22 min RADIO 46,362
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 35 min James 68,394
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr Frijoles 69,062
Laser Weapon 500mW Green Dazzler 2 hr Use this on you 1
Crack and the Social, Moral, and Economic Decay... 2 hr THE CRACKHEADS 1
Music Artists A to Z (Feb '14) 2 hr SLY WEST 302
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••