Prove there's a god.

[BadBreathBruce]

First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Well, all matter HAD to have a beginning, right?? Invent yourself a time machine. Hop into the little time machine and travel back in time to as far back as your little heart desires. EVENTUALLY, you will arrive at the VERY BEGINNING of ALL THINGS and (no surprises) you will arrive at what it says in Genesis 1:1. THERE'S YOUR PROOF!! BUT........you'll have to make that little time capsule first. Good luck!!

[UR BS]

Huh wrote:

What a loser. Bwahahahaha. Want to meet 30 Marines who don't think I am abhorrent or a chicken shit? I bet you can't pull up 30 who will support you likewise. Go wallow in your mediocrity. You bore me.

Just because you were the company sl*t and all 30 guys did you for rec doesn't mean they either liked or respected you or that they would ever come to your aid only that they needed some physical release and you were handy.

A real Marine wouldn't need 30 of her supposed buddies anyway.

Besides were you not crying about threats o the internet a while back?

[UR BS]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you misjudged my need. I was merely looking for a way to confirm my suspicion that you are a stealth Christian calling himself an agnostic. For some reason, it's fairly common.
And no, you never the answered the question whether you accept any god claim,that is, believe in any god. All you said was that whatever you believed, that you didn't consider it certain. But the fact remains that you have refused to answer the question five times now. That's fine. Just as in a court of law when a defendant refuses to answer a question, the jury is free to decide why.
<quoted text>
Confidence and self-esteem have always been issues for me. I'm a very insecure guy.

Tiy still keep beatiung that same dead horse. I have answered what my beliefs are and you are not happy with the answer so you want to twist around and try an get a different one. Your motives are clear as you have stated them fairly plain for anyone that can reason.
You want to show somehow that I am actually a Christian because then you feel that is some kind of victory for you in your little world. Well sorry I am an agnostic I have been an agnostic and will remain an agnostic until one or the other side can come up with sufficient proof to sway me one way or the other.
The fact that you and kitty feel that you can be both agnostic and an atheist or a thiest does not play in what I consider an agnostic. As far as I am concerned an affirmation in either direction removes the agnostic and you then become either a theist or an atheist.
So if you want to keep beating this dead horse go ahead you have received my answer and that is all there is.

[Catcher1]

BadBreathBruce wrote:

First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Well, all matter HAD to have a beginning, right?? Invent yourself a time machine. Hop into the little time machine and travel back in time to as far back as your little heart desires. EVENTUALLY, you will arrive at the VERY BEGINNING of ALL THINGS and (no surprises) you will arrive at what it says in Genesis 1:1. THERE'S YOUR PROOF!! BUT........you'll have to make that little time capsule first. Good luck!!

Even if I wanted to, I wouldn't reply to your posts because your name is so horrible.

You should change your name.

Or if not, just go somewhere else.

No offense. It's not you; it's your name.

[Catcher1]

UR BS wrote:

<quoted text>
Just because you were the company sl*t and all 30 guys did you for rec doesn't mean they either liked or respected you or that they would ever come to your aid only that they needed some physical release and you were handy.
A real Marine wouldn't need 30 of her supposed buddies anyway.
Besides were you not crying about threats o the internet a while back?

Oh, no, look who's back.

It's bad breath BS.

Must you?

[Aura Mytha]

karl44 wrote:

<quoted text>
guns in the wrong hands make the world a less safe place.
I would prefer to give up my guns than to see people like RR armed.
licensing, restrictions, and storage laws need upgrading.

Go ahead just don't include the US in your tyrannical plans.

[UR BS]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you feel that you need protection? I don't, and never have.
<quoted text>
That's true of anything and everything.
It's the differences between guns and most other things that interest me.

The first statement you make here is a lie.

Everyone has needed protection if that were not true we would not have a Military, or Law Enforcement.

[UR BS]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
I've never tried, but if you like, I will:
How can you justify charging somebody with grand theft auto for driving away in the car that you are allowed to drive at will? The answer is the same.
<quoted text>
I don't have a well-formed opinion there. You might be correct.

Not their car and that brings us to my second point. If it is because it is not their child then at best it should be a property crime and nothing more.

[UR BS]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
I am pro-limited government. Some of the things that you do in your home are my business. Having a meth lab comes to mind first.
<quoted text>
I support a woman's right to choose. I do advocate for prenatal care for pregnant women that want their babies, and for government funding of such care where helpful.
Do we need more adoption agencies? If so, I'm all for their creation.
<quoted text>
Great. Some people will be interested in those options. They should be available to them. That's what choice means.

The problem with your answer here is that you start by saying you are for limited Government but then everything you mention expands Government.
My suggestion is for private funding or replacement of many of the services that are paid for with my taxes now.

[Aura Mytha]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-si tes/iczn/code/
<quoted text>
Crickets. I don't know what that means, especially "the fetus of a parasite."
The genus and species of a human fetus is Homo sapiens. It's on the primate branch of the mammalian branch of the vertebrate branch of the animal kingdom.
I really don't understand why this is such an emotional issue for so many. Why would anybody object strenuously or emotionally to anybody calling a fetus a parasite, even if that were incorrect? What if I called it a snowball? How much effort would you expend refuting that?

Really again it doesn't matter except if your hypothesis were true , then all placental mammals are a form of parasite. That would change all of biology in fact there would be no mammals no eutherian just more on this list.

http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/az/index.html

[UR BS]

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, no, look who's back.
It's bad breath BS.
Must you?

OH NO look who's responding it is the LONG BEACH LOON!

[Catcher1]

UR BS wrote:

<quoted text>
The problem with your answer here is that you start by saying you are for limited Government but then everything you mention expands Government.
My suggestion is for private funding or replacement of many of the services that are paid for with my taxes now.

OK, thanks for your input.

We will consider your suggestion.

[UR BS]

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
OK, thanks for your input.
We will consider your suggestion.

Still responding I see.

There are gaps in my posts because my life does not revolve around topix. I have to work, as much as I know that is an alien concept to you I do have to work so I can have more of my money redistributed to broke a$$ states like California and deadbeats that stay on topix rather than work.

[nanoanomaly]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
Like I said, bitter and unlikeable.

Why would I want someone I despise to like me?

You misspelled "unlikable", you nitwit.

[BadBreathBruce]

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Even if I wanted to, I wouldn't reply to your posts because your name is so horrible.
You should change your name.
Or if not, just go somewhere else.
No offense. It's not you; it's your name.

I made up my username to MAKE YOU LAUGH!! LOL!! I've had other names such as "StinkyCheese" and "Rudeness" in my previous attempts to make other people laugh. Anyway, you've got me thinkin' now, tho. Okay, I'll change it (hmmmmm......I'll be on this thread with my NEW NAME tomorrow). Catch ya Catcher1!!

[nanoanomaly]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
It thinks it can change reality just by wishing ... but that never works, that's why Nano is like that, it just faces disappointment every day.

Says the nut pretending to be a woman. Are you still using that voice modulator in your vlogs? You'll never be a real woman, O' Deluded One, just because you do a little more than wishing. Technological artifice will get you nowhere but frustrated and possibly on a watch list.

[nanoanomaly]

UR BS wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do ylou find it not offensive?
Are you soo insecure that you have to attempt to denegrate other people to nake yourself feel better?
No you are the person that is being insecure here. When you can not even have the courage to not remove the humanity from someone simply because you disagree with that persons position.
I am sure you would not appreciate being dehumanized because your opinions are seen as not agreeing with anotherv poster.
If you can not understand this then possibly it is you that should be referred to as an IT.

You'll notice the freak calls me a "proven liar" yet can't show the "proof" of that claim.

[nanoanomaly]

UR BS wrote:

<quoted text>
Please if you wonm't be honest with the people on this forum at least be honest with yourself.
You know that the usage of IT to describe a person is offensive and you meant as such. Do not be such a wimp that you won't admit that it was indeed ment as an insult, if it wasn't then you need somone to help you understand the written language better.
Your insecurity is showing throiugh not mine. You called the otherv poster an IT that does not reflect humanity when directed at a person if you are too ignorant to ubderstand that then I pity you.

Did I miss something here? Did that fudgeugly tranny call ME an "it"?

[UR BS]

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>Did I miss something here? Did that fudgeugly tranny call ME an "it"?

Yes she did that was a large part of our argument that she somehow along with IANS don't seem to see anything wrong with it while I look at it as being ultra insulting and a demonstartion of no class.

[Lil Ticked]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You'll have to tell me what you think this means. Are you supporting me, contradicting me, or neither?

Nobody would accept that risk? What is the population of the U.S.? What are the odds of getting shot by an "accidental discharge" of a firearm if it only occurs on average of 851 times in a year?
The same can be said for the 8,583 total firearm homicides.
As for the 19,766 Intentional self-harm (suicides) by discharge of firearms, it was their choice. If not a gun it would have been something else.

Why would I support you? Don't you have a job?