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 (Page 7,030)

Showing posts 140,581 - 140,600 of167,603
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159876
Jun 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159877
Jun 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159878
Jun 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159879
Jun 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159880
Jun 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159881
Jun 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159882
Jun 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159883
Jun 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159884
Jun 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159885
Jun 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159886
Jun 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159887
Jun 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159888
Jun 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159889
Jun 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Wojar, perhaps you're simply stressed out? Too much work in the lab, maybe?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159892
Jun 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159894
Jun 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159895
Jun 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Justice LRS wrote:
<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"?
Well, sonny, if there were a 'great flood' that immersed the earth, there would be genetic evidence. Whether you were cognizant of that fact or not is not my problem. Capisce?

If there were big floods in past history, so fecking what? We have big floods today.

So you agree that the Noah's ark fable with the gigantic flood that covered the earth is myth and not factual?

A simple yes or no will do.

You're a pathetic coward who cannot answer the question.

"I posted only about geological evidence that does support a great flood theory."

What great flood are you referring to, MORON? A great flood in the Precambrian period? Or are you referring to a little great flood that has nothing to do with your fantasies?

But if you are referring to a "great flood" according to the bible, you're pissing in the wind.

So I don't give a rat's ass if you expressly mentioned Noah.

Capisce. So what the f is your point? MORON?
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.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159896
Jun 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Well gents, it's time to crank up some real horsepower. Four cylinders playing whatever tune my wrist tells them to. Gotta love it! 155HP, 425lbs. What a riot. Enjoy your evenings.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159897
Jun 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, sonny, if there were a 'great flood' that immersed the earth, there would be genetic evidence. Whether you were cognizant of that fact or not is not my problem. Capisce?
If there were big floods in past history, so fecking what? We have big floods today.
So you agree that the Noah's ark fable with the gigantic flood that covered the earth is myth and not factual?
A simple yes or no will do.
You're a pathetic coward who cannot answer the question.
"I posted only about geological evidence that does support a great flood theory."
What great flood are you referring to, MORON? A great flood in the Precambrian period? Or are you referring to a little great flood that has nothing to do with your fantasies?
But if you are referring to a "great flood" according to the bible, you're pissing in the wind.
So I don't give a rat's ass if you expressly mentioned Noah.
Capisce. So what the f is your point? MORON?
<quoted text>
Don't worry about it wojar. Geology isn't your thing, I understand. Your anger is showing again. Had any R&R recently?

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159898
Jun 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Well, even Charles Darwin himself as early as 1859 said in his Origin of Species that the 'Cambrian Explosion' with it's sudden, rapid appearance of all major phyla extant today was a major objection that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.
I'm straddling the fence on this one, Woj, smack dab in the middle. I'm not taking any chances with the Big Boss. My primary intent being to draw attention to the Cambrian Explosion ca. 550 million years ago before present, give or take a few millenia.
So don't get me going on stramataphores, viruses and bacterium.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 140,581 - 140,600 of167,603
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

51 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min leosnana 1,034,184
Amy 4-19 13 min PEllen 12
Abby 4-19 20 min Julie 17
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 26 min Chicagobunny 47,068
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr Frijoles 65,120
Cook County issues 1,000th gay marriage license 1 hr Evilgelicalling 6
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 2 hr Whiny1 4,030
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 hr edogxxx 96,137
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••