Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#68493 Dec 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
People do the same with inkblots.
BUT these are seen time after time and some people just take a little longer to focus and see what it appears to be, and others have jokingly made funny comments that the don't see anything.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#68494 Dec 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Still with the no true Scotsman fallacy. Based on your fallacy, if it was true, then that means we can't trust anyone who claims they are christian ... even you.
So who shall we trust... Evolutionists who adhere to their own agenda... regardless of morals... like you?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#68495 Dec 29, 2012
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So who shall we trust... Evolutionists who adhere to their own agenda... regardless of morals... like you?
You meant Gravitationists.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#68496 Dec 29, 2012
So you're saying that TRUE Christians *would* kill another on the grounds of their beliefs. Yes, we would agree that they would do that.
xxxooxxx wrote:
ahhh..so you would twist the meaning
I didn't twist anything. You wrote "no TRUE Christians would not kill another on the grounds of their beliefs".

If "*no* TRUE Christians would *not*", that's the same as "TRUE Christians *would*".

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#68497 Dec 29, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>BUT these are seen time after time and some people just take a little longer to focus and see what it appears to be, and others have jokingly made funny comments that the don't see anything.
Um, you think they were joking?

Inkblots are seen time after time. As a matter of fact what you "see" in the inkblot is extremely telling in what type of personality, person, and belief system you have. It has proven accurate enough that even psychologists use it, not just the quack psychiatrists. What you report "seeing" in the inkblot is your subconscious, anthropomorphic, images based on what you imagine or even see in the real word, and enhanced by what your mind focuses on. When you focus on Rah a lot, you will see Rah in everything, when you focus on unicorns a lot, you will see unicorns in everything, when you focus on any mythology a lot, that will always be what you "see" in any random configuration of colors, even in agates. It's such a well understood phenomenon that there is a huge database of references for the responses to cross reference now and formulate an almost perfect profile of a person, with nothing more than random colors.

So no, your agates are no different than inkblots, you see what you want to see, or what you expect to see, even if it's not there. Post photos of them, without saying what they are, let us look. You won't because you know we'll not see what you see, if we see anything. Not seeing any imagery in the randomness is specific personality type, actually, one that we refer to as "skeptical."

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#68498 Dec 29, 2012
xxxooxxx wrote:
So who shall we trust... Evolutionists who adhere to their own agenda... regardless of morals
You mean, the "agenda" of science, which is to observe the evidence and then create theories to explain it?

As opposed to the agenda of creationists, which is to start with scripture and try to interpret everything to fit, even when it doesn't?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#68499 Dec 29, 2012
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently you science book thumpers fail to make the distinction between true Christians, and wolves in sheep's clothing.lol
I'm quite sure that the victims of the Inquisition weren't too concerned with "true" Christians, since, at minimum, it was them who allowed the Inquisition to come into existence.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#68500 Dec 29, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> How about Leela, Pierre, is she your wife or daughter?
Numbskull?lol
That's too vague to have meaning, but from what I can google, it sounds racist.

I don't have time for that nonsense! I must get back to stealing Mr. Crab's secret recipe! Pee off!!

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#68501 Dec 29, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm quite sure that the victims of the Inquisition weren't too concerned with "true" Christians, since, at minimum, it was them who allowed the Inquisition to come into existence.
Nor the victims of Science experiments, that make the Inquisitions look like a Sunday picnic.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#68502 Dec 29, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a Julian Assagne rewrite what has already been written type problem, don't you.
Give it up. You quoted the disorder incorrectly while insulting another, and got called out on it.
Grow the flock up, face reality and just admit YOU were wrong about it.
I didn't get that definition from internet encyclopedia but from a dictionary. Wherever you got yours and thought it was mroe accurate is not my problem. You seem to miss my point.

Look she is the who kept telling people are insane as if she knows what real insanity is and mean it literally. So I did the same to her and called her such even if it wasn't true. I knew what histrionic personality disorder is but I didn't specifically label her that but instead chose the other the more colloquial term that fits her behavior, "hysterical"

do you think you're being rational here? You really think I could diagnose people? If I did I would call you a pathological liar.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#68503 Dec 29, 2012
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor the victims of Science experiments, that make the Inquisitions look like a Sunday picnic.
Not really.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#68504 Dec 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, you think they were joking?
Inkblots are seen time after time. As a matter of fact what you "see" in the inkblot is extremely telling in what type of personality, person, and belief system you have. It has proven accurate enough that even psychologists use it, not just the quack psychiatrists. What you report "seeing" in the inkblot is your subconscious, anthropomorphic, images based on what you imagine or even see in the real word, and enhanced by what your mind focuses on. When you focus on Rah a lot, you will see Rah in everything, when you focus on unicorns a lot, you will see unicorns in everything, when you focus on any mythology a lot, that will always be what you "see" in any random configuration of colors, even in agates. It's such a well understood phenomenon that there is a huge database of references for the responses to cross reference now and formulate an almost perfect profile of a person, with nothing more than random colors.
So no, your agates are no different than inkblots, you see what you want to see, or what you expect to see, even if it's not there. Post photos of them, without saying what they are, let us look. You won't because you know we'll not see what you see, if we see anything. Not seeing any imagery in the randomness is specific personality type, actually, one that we refer to as "skeptical."
I could post a picture but it will take some time and another trip to wal mart to make a picture disk. You evos sure are a lot of trouble...

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#68505 Dec 29, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
SOME humans have the ability of SELF control... as well as the ability to listen to a little thing called a conscience-in knowing right vs wrong (including in the areas of "Do Unto other others, as one would wish to be treated themselves" per say) BETTER than others.
FACT.
For the ones that DON'T and only wish to USE some lame "we're all animlas" EXCUSE to try and justify thier own NOT as good "behavior"-oh well..that's their problem, NOT anyone elses!!!!!!!!!!
So you don't agree that we are all animals? Where did conscience come from? It's the reason why we study ethics. Are you a bible literalist? Is that why you take every thing people say here literally? Can you tell if people are kidding? Do you know what sacrcasm is?

READ BETWEEN THE LINES! Did it go over your head? I meant that figuratively speaking.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#68506 Dec 29, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>I could post a picture but it will take some time and another trip to wal mart to make a picture disk. You evos sure are a lot of trouble...
Um .... "make a picture disc?" It's called USB, you connect to your computer then download the images. Not that hard, we made it so even the most computer illiterate person could do it.

However I suspect I was correct in my assessment that you know we will not see what you see, so you are just dragging it out as an excuse to "forget" later on. I have a note-it on my desktop now, reminding me to ask again in a few days.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#68507 Dec 29, 2012
http://digitalnoisegraffiti.com/wiki/images/4...

See? Screencap as evidence. I noted it.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#68508 Dec 29, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps we are to some degree, but humans don't have the senses of animals, even if they seek to emulate them. Deer are a particularly bad example of a metaphor of the human psyche, although if I were to speculate, I'd say the primary reason is because the human persona is based on binocular vision, while deer are animals who watch on all sides and flee from conflicts. Even though humans are not predators by their evolutionary nature, they share more in common with them, psychologically.
Being bipedal is another break away from most animals at a fundamental level. I'd have to say, even if one was hard-wired similar to an animal, the differences in anatomy would be significant enough to produce very different personalities.
All animals are metaphors for ALL aspects of our psyche. We are not just one type of animal.

Can you tell us how bipedalism actually occured? How do you know we didn't get that from kangaroos?

FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#68509 Dec 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um .... "make a picture disc?" It's called USB, you connect to your computer then download the images. Not that hard, we made it so even the most computer illiterate person could do it.
However I suspect I was correct in my assessment that you know we will not see what you see, so you are just dragging it out as an excuse to "forget" later on. I have a note-it on my desktop now, reminding me to ask again in a few days.
As I said, I have a collection and I have donated a few of them to museums. If I go through the trouble of posting one that I think has a picture in it, how many people would it take to convince you it has a picture, and how could we determine they are honest?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#68510 Dec 29, 2012
Richard Robles wrote:
The connecticut school shooter was an Atheist ... nuff said! The world would be a happier place without Islam and Atheism.
"Anders Behring Breivik was a practicing militant Darwinian Atheist racist. He believed secularism and science was the world's salvation, not Jesus Christ."
Anders Behring Breivik, Mass Murderer of Norway, was an Atheist Social Darwinist - NOT a Christian
http://cross.tv/69392
.
Both Atheists and Christians (and also Islam) are guilty of committing atrocities.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#68511 Dec 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
For the same reason that they adopted the false religions of the Greek and Roman gods.
<quoted text>
Wrong. From your favorite source, Wikipedia:
"Rejection of the state religion was tantamount to treason. This was the context for Rome's conflict with Christianity, which Romans variously regarded as a form of atheism and novel superstitio."
Wrong. Was it the official religion in the whole empire, yes or no?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#68512 Dec 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
So you're saying that TRUE Christians *would* kill another on the grounds of their beliefs. Yes, we would agree that they would do that.
<quoted text>
I didn't twist anything. You wrote "no TRUE Christians would not kill another on the grounds of their beliefs".
If "*no* TRUE Christians would *not*", that's the same as "TRUE Christians *would*".
I really can't see your logic here...would not kill = would kill?

Not that it matters, but I sure you understood the message imply...lol

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Russian Propaganda 3 min Wolftracks 3
Things Not To Say In Bed (Oct '11) 6 min Alias 2,666
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 7 min Princess Hey 7,123
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 11 min Juju Beans 6,421
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 12 min Wolftracks 21,411
Ebola in America 15 min eleanorigby 43
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 15 min Milee 137,779
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 23 min Wolftracks 147,753
Missing posters.. (Jan '14) 31 min Alias 35
Doctors Remove 9-Pound Hairball From Teen's Sto... 42 min Go Blue Forever 7

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE