Comments
609,881 - 609,900 of 720,689 Comments Last updated 15 min ago

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#642372
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Your first point is utterly stupid sorry to say. By saying that, we can call ANYTHING simply a natural law we do not yet understand. For example, Potter flies on a broom. "It is not magic, it is simply a natural law we donot yet understand." That is a ridiculously stupid argument.
Genesis 1 conforms to no natural law. Period. Much of it is defined as magic, as per your definition.
As for your second point: the fossil record shows snakes appearing 200 million years ago. Modern humans only 200,000. What natural law do you think we have wrong now?
Yup, there's more of that atheist childishness. Y'all love to compare the Bible to Hairy Pooter or Santa becuase you need it dumbed down to understand it - or you just like talking shit - or you just don't understand what you're talking about so you poke fun.

Really? 200 million years? I've read otherwise. I've seen as early as 50,000 years ago to 150 million years, but never 200 million. I've also read that the origin of snakes is unknown. What say you?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#642373
Jul 18, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, there's more of that atheist childishness. Y'all love to compare the Bible to Hairy Pooter or Santa becuase you need it dumbed down to understand it - or you just like talking shit - or you just don't understand what you're talking about so you poke fun.
Really? 200 million years? I've read otherwise. I've seen as early as 50,000 years ago to 150 million years, but never 200 million. I've also read that the origin of snakes is unknown. What say you?
1) You have a figure that bends or breaks laws of nature. That, according to your definition, not mine, is magic. Plain and simple. Bo getting away from that.

2) The guy who said unknown is not to be believed. The guy who said 50,000 years is a loon. 150 mya is about right. The earliest transitional fossils show dates at roughly 200 mya. That is the transitional fossil though. From there, they became more snake like. In fact, If some palaeontologist tells us that the first modern snakes lived 150 mya, I would say that jibes with the hypothesis.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#642374
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

13

13

13

Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
1) You have a figure that bends or breaks laws of nature. That, according to your definition, not mine, is magic. Plain and simple. Bo getting away from that.
2) The guy who said unknown is not to be believed. The guy who said 50,000 years is a loon. 150 mya is about right. The earliest transitional fossils show dates at roughly 200 mya. That is the transitional fossil though. From there, they became more snake like. In fact, If some palaeontologist tells us that the first modern snakes lived 150 mya, I would say that jibes with the hypothesis.
1. No, I posted the definition of magic as "The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces". If you want to consider "God magic", that's your call.

2. The "guy" who said unknown is Wikipedia. I can't post the link right now, but google 'snake wiki', it's in section 2.1,'origins'; "The origin of snakes remains an unresolved issue."

How is 150mya 'about right' and 200mya is also right? That's a 50 MILLION year difference....

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#642375
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

11

Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
1) You have a figure that bends or breaks laws of nature. That, according to your definition, not mine, is magic. Plain and simple. Bo getting away from that.
2) The guy who said unknown is not to be believed. The guy who said 50,000 years is a loon. 150 mya is about right. The earliest transitional fossils show dates at roughly 200 mya. That is the transitional fossil though. From there, they became more snake like. In fact, If some palaeontologist tells us that the first modern snakes lived 150 mya, I would say that jibes with the hypothesis.
http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~brm2286/locomot...

Snakes understand physics.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#642376
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

11

http://jeb.biologists.org/content/140/1/1.ful...

I think there is EM in there somewhere.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#642377
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

11

1

1

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/18/news/economy/...

Am I supposed to have sympathy for OPEC from that article?

Am I supposed to be happy paying $4 for a gallon of gas so they don't have social problems in their countries?

CNN is a bit liberal oriented.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#642380
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>If Martin was a 5'11" white kid and Zimmerman was puny black guy Eric Holder and Obama wouldn't have made a point of swaying public opinion about the case, "trying" to make sure Zimmerman couldn't be found innocent.
The Oval Office insisted on making this tragedy about race.
BTW, Zimmerman isn't white, moron.
He's mixed race white, and he self identifies as hispanic. I never said he was white anyway. I'm just making a point. If this was a little white kid that got shot, with zimmerman the same color, his self defense claim would be laughed out of court. People believe it because black people are "savages." I mean, yeah, he only had a scratch, but in another 2 seconds martin would have eaten his heart out, right?

Also, his height doesn't matter. What does being 5'11 have to do with anything? I'm about that tall, and being 5'10 or 5'11 doesn't make you an imposing figure, and it doesn't excuse people for shooting at you just in case.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#642381
Jul 18, 2013
 
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>I see you like fantasizing about Zimmerman to make him a monster in your own head. I've never heard mention of him messing with an underage girl or wearing klan outfits; why would he? He's not white. There are blacks that have been calling him Peruvajew. Geez, wake up and get a clue.
" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Tray... ;
Trayvon was no sweet, innocent little boy, but an eager burglar-in-training and looking at being a convict soon himself. I would say the same thing about a white or hispanic teen who was caught with a burglary tool on him.
Not racist much at all, are you?
I'm guessing that when Mexico has completed its invasion of America and the Hispanics are ruling the hood with an iron fist you'll be trying to blame that on white people too?
You need to try and use your own brain to reason things out and stop letting that shithead Al Sharpton define reality for you.
Good thing we killed him, right? He was a menace to society. What we need are more vigilantes with hero fantasies!

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#642382
Jul 18, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
BTW, I had a girl friend once with a teenage son who was quite the thief. His buddies told me that. Quiet, liked music. Much like the description of Trayvon. But he was quite white. He did like the pot, too
I took him under my wing a bit, used him for help where he could make money, and even got him to take his GED test, which I paid for, and he did pass.
After his mother and I had a breakup he broke a window in my van to steal a gun he thought I kept in there, having seen me put it in there at one job. He didn't know I carried it all of the time otherwise.
Quiet. Liked music. Pot smoker.

All the signs were there. How did we miss it?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#642384
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

8

timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Quiet. Liked music. Pot smoker.
All the signs were there. How did we miss it?
Poor Timmy.

He thinks his moral outrage means anything to anyone else other than him.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#642385
Jul 18, 2013
 
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Really..tell that to the children who are no loner being beaten because their abusers are now behind bars. Tell that to the kids whose parents went to jail for cooking meth in their kitchen and exposing them to fatal chemicals and putting them at risk of being blown into a thousand pieces. yeah Timn...it is.
<quoted text>
2) No, I posted the link...I didn't leave it out. Again...those stats refer to those that rehab actually works for...if they referred to the 50% or greater that it doesn't work for...then it couldn't possibly be cost efficient. Use your brain. Those stats didn't damage my argument at all...I agreed...sure rehab is cost efficient...WHEN IT WORKS? That article didn't include the stats that also tell us 40-60% of the users actually relapse within the first 6 months...which pretty negates the reduction in cost because when they relapse...the costs still exist. Do you disagree with that? Or are you just having a "hard time understanding" that logic?
<quoted text>
3) Again, only when it works. Should we ignore that it doesn't work over half the time? Unlike you, I addressed this issue when I said, "I'm not against rehab...but we need to rethink our programs and implement something that actually works."
<quoted text>Did I ever say I was "cool" paying for the drug war as it is now? No..I didn't. And since when was it inhumane to place someone in jail for repeatedly breaking the law?
<quoted text>
4) I was addicted to cigarettes for years. It was not a disease...it was a vice, as you say. It was an addiction and a weakness on my part...Certainly, I had a chemical addiction...but in no way was it a disease...I had a choice to stop or continue...it wasn't easy...but I wasn't mentally ill. Depriving yourself of food as a means of being socially accepted or for any other reason, is significantly different than doing drugs...anorexics don't put others lives at risk...drug abusers do.
1) Do you even know what the term 'harm reduction' means in regards to drug use? This isn't even a debate. Jail is not harm reduction. Harm reduction starts from the premise that people are going to use drugs and there is nothing we can do about it (which all of human history bears out), and that the best thing we can do is offer tools and services to make it as safe as possible.

2) Go back and read the article. The study is for the institution of rehab in general, not just the people it works for. Where are you getting that from? You're making it up. For every dollar spent, 3 dollars are saved in other ways. So, for example, if one person is relieved of their addiction with a 20,000 dollar investment, that person will not go on to cost us 20k in health costs and 40k in an auto accident. Understand? This goes for rehab costs in general.

3) I never said that rehab works every time. But jail *doesn't work at all.* You keep ignoring the fact that the drug war has not produced a single appreciable effect when it comes to reducing drug use or the costs associated with it.

4) It is inhumane to put people in jail for breaking a law that shouldn't exist. Do you think you should have been jailed every time you were caught with a pack of cigarettes? If you lived during prohibition, would you consider your treatment humane if you were locked up for having a drink?

I know, it's "different." Because you chose a drug that society deems acceptable, you were in the right, but because some people choose a drug that has been outlawed for no reason, they are criminals to be punished. Am I getting the logic right?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#642386
Jul 18, 2013
 
with regards to drug use*

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#642387
Jul 18, 2013
 
2)My example was a simplification applied to one person, but just apply it to the entire concept of treatment. For every dollar we spend on rehab, no matter how many times an individual may relapse, we save 3 dollars in other ways.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#642389
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

10

Covert Stealth Op wrote:
<quoted text>You're kidding? Zimmerman was told to stay in the car and not to get out by the 911 operator. So, are you saying that Trayvon got in the car.
The white witness said that she saw Zimmerman chasing Martin back and forth. Then she said for minutes the two were throwing punches back and forth. Trayvon backed up, but Zimmerman claims that he was in his right to stand his ground and not back up.
Here is the problem. His ground was inside of the car and not outside of it moving forward against Trayvon. In my state, if you shoot an intruder and he falls outside of your door, then you might have problems. I have heard cops say that if this happens, it is best to drag the perp back inside. We have a retreat to the wall law.
However,even under Florida law, at worse Zimmerman should have been convicted of manslaughter of which there is voluntary and involuntary.
Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder.
The definition of manslaughter differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind; or the circumstances under which the killing occurred (mitigating factors). Manslaughter is usually broken down into two distinct categories: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter; however, this is not the case in all jurisdictions.
What will be interesting is to see whether the children in Sandy Hook were actually threatening the shooter and Adam Lanza feared for his life. So, were those 20 children acting due to anti-black racist Klan leaders?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunatic#Use_of_t...

Just think, when he signs it you will be legitimatized. No longer a second class citizen, an object of ridicule. You will becomes a voter. Progressive Democrat, no doubt.

Ain't democracy grand?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#642390
Jul 18, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Religionthebiglie wrote:
That's a new approach. I've never seen a christian use the "god has limits" argument.
<quoted text>
That's because both of you are biblically ignorant.
God can't be tempted by evil.
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God;" for God cannot be tempted by evil, and he himself does not tempt anyone (James 1:13).
The Bible says that God cannot deny Himself.
If we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself (2 Timothy 2:13).
God Cannot Lie
In hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began (Titus 1:2).
There are things God cannot do.
You don't understand.
I wonder how many christians disagree with you. You guys gotta get those decoder rings in check before you tell people they don't understand your personal interpretation.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#642391
Jul 18, 2013
 
Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree because both Zimmerman and Martin were out of control. Martin could have easily avoided any physical confrontation with Zimmerman. It will be interesting to learn whether Martin responded with violence because he had one of those lovely anti-whitey racist reverends.
I don't think it's fair to say martin was out of control based on the testimony of the person who killed him and one eyewitness, who is directly contradicted by another. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable.

Oh well, he got off.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#642392
Jul 18, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor Timmy.
He thinks his moral outrage means anything to anyone else other than him.
What are you talking about?

But, to follow in the posting style of dave:

Poor dave, he thinks that when he dies he's gonna come back as an EM ghost to possess people and punish them for overlooking his brilliance in life. Really.

Now that's sad.
Myth Buster

Peoria, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#642393
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

10

10

10

Some of you religiously retarded rednecks are so completely insane that you make up shit to rationalize your views even on non-religious matters.

Zimmerman was advised against chasing Martin when the dispatcher realized he was chasing him. Zimmerman immediately stopped and lost sight of Martin then requested the police call to meet him.

The incident was a terrible tragedy which shouldn't be discussed further in this thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_...

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#642394
Jul 18, 2013
 

Judged:

13

13

13

timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I wonder how many christians disagree with you. You guys gotta get those decoder rings in check before you tell people they don't understand your personal interpretation.
It's not a "personal interpretation", I gave you direct scripture from the Bible that tells us things that God cannot do.

And what is it with you atheists and the "decoder ring"? Why do you guys always have to turn everything about Christianity or the Bible into something childish?

Magic, decoder rings, fairies, sky daddies, etc. are kiddie stories. Have you not grown up yet?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#642395
Jul 18, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
1. No, I posted the definition of magic as "The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces". If you want to consider "God magic", that's your call.
2. The "guy" who said unknown is Wikipedia. I can't post the link right now, but google 'snake wiki', it's in section 2.1,'origins'; "The origin of snakes remains an unresolved issue."
How is 150mya 'about right' and 200mya is also right? That's a 50 MILLION year difference....
1) Of course we consider your (and every other deity) as mythological figures considered to have magical powers
2) You only read the one little line. There are two theories (what we call a hypothesis from where snakes came from. One is they are descended from a family of aquatic reptiles, called mosasaurs (from the Jurassic) and the other competing hypothesis is that they were once lizzards whom have lost their legs.
I did have the date wrong, though. The earliest snake fossils are found in a bracket 125-112 mya. Hence, the 200 million year guess I made was quite wrong. Nevertheless, snakes have been here for a confirmed 112 million years. It still means they were here for 111 million years before humans showed up.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

435 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 9 min Aura Mytha 5,233
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 10 min hojo 532,642
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 12 min Aura Mytha 224,117
nudist dating question 13 min Christy8623 1
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 21 min NoStress4me 440,828
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 24 min An NFL Fan 115,034
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 31 min Senecus 1,522
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 2 hr Clearwater 172,345
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 2 hr Naveen kumar 4,629
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 3 hr bbbbbb 73
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••