|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 03/04/2006 : 20:08:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
That means that not only is bill not reading my post, but DaveW is not reading my posts either.
pout, sulk, pout
Aw, I'm sorry, moak. I could give you a million excuses, but I know they won't help. Here, have a cookie. It's sitting on your computer's harddrive, especially from the SFN to you.
On another note... Well, I suppose replying to Bill is pointless. He neither objected to nor even tried to refute my conclusion that he has simply defined "God" as the creator of this universe, and then tried to pass that definition off as a logical conclusion in a transparent scam. All the crap about how the "first cause" of the universe "must be" eternal is just so much more posturing. And he still continues to bluster about "atheist" this or that while clearly showing he doesn't understand one bit of what he's talking about.
If I were Bill's God, and carefully wrote a book which condemns hubris, arrogance and lying, and then saw Bill trying to defend my existence using hubris, arrogance and lies, I'd be mightily pissed off. That's to not even mention the whole hypocrisy thing my kid was sent to Earth to freakin' teach. Jeeesu... oh, ooops, sorry. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 20:11:29 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
And I have a chip on my shoulder.
Hey, I didn't start it.
I just think it is funny that you complained about me being a jerk towards Bill, but now you are busting him up worse than I ever did.
I can't just enjoy the humor of the situation?
(Edited to add: Apparently marf deleted the post to which I'm responding here.... her post was simply a quote of my last post this thread combined with the one sentence of hers I quoted here.)
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 03/04/2006 20:15:14 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 20:29:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Bill wrote: quote:
from day one I held the notion that the debate boiled down to an eternal first cause, or eternal existence of matter, for the explanation of the universe. And of coarse the atheist must/will defend the existence of eternal matter, or at least the possibility of it, to the bitter end.
No, most of us are arguing that the whole question of the "first cause" has been made irrelevent by the fact that time itself is part of nature, and therefore nothing is really "eternal". quote:
That is why I believe cause and effect theory is justified in being applied to the first cause of the universe. Cause and effect theory is an observed phenomenon in our universe.
But, Bill, on the molecular level, we've observed the principle (it's not a scientific law and never was) of causality being broken! And that observation was first predited by mathmatical theories. So we know that the principle of causality is not a universal principle.
Bill, please, for the love of Pete, why have you not responded to people repeatedly telling you that that "the law of cause and effect" is not a law, and in fact, even as a princple we have observed it being broken. How do you respond to that???
quote:
No, most of us are arguing that the whole question of the "first cause" has been made irrelevant by the fact that time itself is part of nature, and therefore nothing is really "eternal".
(bill) But you just assume that time, as we know it, did not exist before BB. You speculate that time was distorted before BB, when you truly have no clue, or proof of any of this. As Dave W. said, “we cannot know,” therefore we must treat all options as “equally likely.” So in reality, you are just assuming that cause and effect was suspended or non existent, as you truly must give the probability equal status that cause and effect was in effect as you give to the notion that it was not in effect, and if you disagree, Dave W. backs me on this. That makes your notion of suspended cause and effect before BB pure speculation and not science as Dave W. declares we “cannot know.”
quote:
But, Bill, on the molecular level, we've observed the principle (it's not a scientific law and never was) of causality being broken!
Bill, please, for the love of Pete, why have you not responded to people repeatedly telling you that that "the law of cause and effect" is not a law, and in fact, even as a principle we have observed it being broken. How do you respond to that???
(bill) For the sake of keeping the conversation moving forward I will grant your assertion of particles, at the atomic level, seemingly popping into existence. The atheist will then point to this alleged observation as an example of cause and effect being broken, or being temporarily suspended. But this has not provided any explanation for the existence of the particle. If true it has merely demonstrated that the particle moved from one state of existence to another. So in the end you have evidence for the ability of particles at the atomic level to move from one state of existence to another and the possibility of two different states of existence. The one we know with cause and effect and time and space in effect which is our know state of existence, and one that we know nothing about. Any notion that time is distorted in this second state of existence is pure speculation as “we cannot know”. Any notion that infinite states of existence exist is pure speculation as we only have evidence for two possible states of existence existing and one for sure state existing.
So when the atheist attempts to repeal cause and effect theory with quantum mechanics he/she does not even come close. If true all he/she has done is provide evidence for particles with the ability, at the atomic level, to move to another state of existence, and for the possibility of two states of existence to exist. Any speculation that time is distorted in this second state, or that infinite states of existence exist is just that, speculation. So QM, even if true, does not repeal cause and effect. Next the atheists will appeal to their speculation about infinite universes, and in this haze of infinite non-eternal matter is the first cause of itself, and none of this can be refuted because anything is possible with an infinite amount of chances. So now the atheist concludes that this will trump cause and effect theory being applied to the first cause of the universe even though they know darn well admitted speculation does not trump observed theory in any situation. Yet even though they claim to be men and women of science, when it boils right down to it they try to eliminate observed cause and effect theory with non-testable, admitted, pure speculation. One more time, the atheist is chiding the creationist for using established theory, and the basis the atheist uses for the chiding is pure admitted speculation that is based on nothing. Fricking amazing…
Not to even mention the atheist has no idea where to even begin to explain how one particle, at the anatomic level, turns into the entire universe, with complex forms of life created from this particle, and the infinite amounts of fine tuned systems required to sustain this universe and life that we see around us.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 20:32:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Bill, you keep on insisting that the law of cause and effect applies to the creation of the universe, even though you have been shown that on a quantum level, cause and effect does not necessarily apply. It is also obvious (common sense) that cause and effect require the existence of time. Cause happens before effect. Time and space are inextricably linked. However before the big bang, there was no space, therefore no time, as we know it, hence the terms "cause" and "effect" are meaningless.
But let's, for the sake of argument, conveniently forget all those facts and assume that your contention is correct. Everything had a cause, and the law of "cause and effect" always applies. So when your god caused the universe to happen, it also set in motion an inexorable chain of cause and effect events which continue to this day. Since cause and effect always apply, what you are in effect saying is that the current state of the universe is the only possible state that could exist. That the evolution of life on this planet was pre-ordained. That everything we say or do is because of cause and effect. We have no free will. It means that your god has sent uncounted souls to an eternity of unimaginable suffering for the sin of, well, for no sin at all actually. Your god sent them to hell because it was pre-ordained that they would wind up there, simply due to the laws of cause and effect set into motion when your god created the universe. Who knows, Bill, maybe even you are destined to spend eternity with a pitchfork up your butt, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it, because common sense tells us that the laws of cause and effect always apply.
And what about prayer, Bill? If the common sense laws of cause an effect always apply, why bother praying? Your god won't change anything, because we all know about cause and effect, laws that can't be broken. Sick dying kid? Cancer got you down? Too bad, that was god's plan, set into motion at the instant of creation and brought to fruition by the inviolable laws of cause and effect, and you can pray until you keel over, god's not listening. In fact, your god is completely and utterly ineffective, rendered so by your precious laws of cause and effect.
So be careful what you argue for Bill. I'm not sure you really want to live in that universe you insist upon.
quote:
Bill, you keep on insisting that the law of cause and effect applies to the creation of the universe,
(bill) Based on the observation of cause and effect theory in the known universe.
quote:
even though you have been shown that on a quantum level, cause and effect does not necessarily apply.
(bill) I have not been shown that. The example of QM has demonstrated the possibility of two states of existence and the particles ability to move back and forth between the two. This does not explain the existence of the particle. And any speculation that time is distorted in the unknown state is just that, speculation.
quote:
It is also obvious (common sense) that cause and effect require the existence of time. Cause happens before effect. Time and space are inextricably linked. However before the big bang, there was no space, therefore no time, as we know it, hence the terms "cause" and "effect" are meaningless.
(bill) But how do you know this? Dave W. has repeated many times that “we cannot know” what happened before the BB therefore all options are “equally likely”. So the chance that cause and effect was in existence before BB is just as great as the chance that it was not in effect. Your speculating that cause and effect was suspended, or not present, before BB and this is a science forum.
quote:
So be careful what you argue for Bill. I'm not sure you really want to live in that universe you insist upon.
(bill) While interesting yes, this has nothing to do with atheism.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 20:54:13 [Permalink]
|
Shoot, I forgot about this gem:quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
But, since there are an infinite number of "god concepts," and your definition of "God" is only one of them, then the odds that your God created the Universe are vanishingly small.
Just like yours. Since there are infinite number of “atheistic concepts,” and your definition of “atheist” is only one of them, then the odds that your atheistic philosophy explains the existence of the universe as very minute in deed. Try one in infinite, Dave.
No, not at all. Because we can't know what things were like before the Big Bang, I don't care what they were like. It simply doesn't matter to me which of the infitie possibilities really existed, because we cannot know. My definition of "atheist" (of which you have no clue at all) is irrelevant. Your definition of "God" certainly matters to you, though. So, you've got a miniscule chance of being right and it matters, and I don't care if I'm right. Who's going to sleep better tonight?quote:
And this forum only takes testable facts, Dave
Um, no, you put the "Free for All" thread in the "General Discussion" folder, and not one of our skepticism folders. Bad choice on your part. Another bad choice on your part is to attempt to tell one of the Administrators what the rules of the forum are. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 21:00:35 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
Hey, I didn't start it.
I just think it is funny that you complained about me being a jerk towards Bill, but now you are busting him up worse than I ever did.
I can't just enjoy the humor of the situation?
(Edited to add: Apparently marf deleted the post to which I'm responding here.... her post was simply a quote of my last post this thread combined with the one sentence of hers I quoted here.)
I removed my response about 20 seconds after I posted it. I had hoped to remove it before anyone read it. I apologize to the whole forum for the childish and distracting argument that got out of hand between Dude and I on another discussion. I have no intention of continuing it in any form publically from here on out. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/04/2006 21:07:40 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 21:11:14 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: quote:
But you just assume that time, as we know it, did not exist before BB. You speculate that time was distorted before BB, when you truly have no clue, or proof of any of this.
We've said that we do not know everything, and indeed we don't. However, to say we have “no clue or proof” in regards to time becoming distorted is simply wrong. We do know that time can and does become distorted and that time is connected to space.
quote:
If true it has merely demonstrated that the particle moved from one state of existence to another. So in the end you have evidence for the ability of particles at the atomic level to move from one state of existence to another and the possibility of two different states of existence.
Huh? How do you come to that conclusion? Don't you understand – the math of Quantum physics sets up probabilities, and things can only be predicted by probability. And on the molecular scale, things become harder and harder to predict. It really is tossing a wrench in intuitive ideas about cause and effect. And math trumps common sense any day.
Bill, seriously, you don't understand the science. Stop pretending you do. If you have a real interest in understanding it, then try reading some of the science books that have been recommended in this discussion.
And are you going to just keep going on about the “theory of Cause and Effect” as if it were a scientific law like gravity? It's a damn philosophical principle. Not a law. Not a scientific theory.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 21:16:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Shoot, I forgot about this gem:quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
But, since there are an infinite number of "god concepts," and your definition of "God" is only one of them, then the odds that your God created the Universe are vanishingly small.
Just like yours. Since there are infinite number of “atheistic concepts,” and your definition of “atheist” is only one of them, then the odds that your atheistic philosophy explains the existence of the universe as very minute in deed. Try one in infinite, Dave.
No, not at all. Because we can't know what things were like before the Big Bang, I don't care what they were like. It simply doesn't matter to me which of the infitie possibilities really existed, because we cannot know. My definition of "atheist" (of which you have no clue at all) is irrelevant. Your definition of "God" certainly matters to you, though. So, you've got a miniscule chance of being right and it matters, and I don't care if I'm right. Who's going to sleep better tonight?quote:
And this forum only takes testable facts, Dave
Um, no, you put the "Free for All" thread in the "General Discussion" folder, and not one of our skepticism folders. Bad choice on your part. Another bad choice on your part is to attempt to tell one of the Administrators what the rules of the forum are.
Shoot, I forgot about this gem:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
quote:
But, since there are an infinite number of "god concepts," and your definition of "God" is only one of them, then the odds that your God created the Universe are vanishingly small.
Just like yours. Since there are infinite number of “atheistic concepts,” and your definition of “atheist” is only one of them, then the odds that your atheistic philosophy explains the existence of the universe as very minute in deed. Try one in infinite, Dave.
No, not at all. Because we can't know what things were like before the Big Bang, I don't care what they were like. It simply doesn't matter to me which of the infitie possibilities really existed, because we cannot know. My definition of "atheist" (of which you have no clue at all) is irrelevant. Your definition of "God" certainly matters to you, though. So, you've got a miniscule chance of being right and it matters, and I don't care if I'm right. Who's going to sleep better tonight?
(bill) Well for the shake of the debate I declared the first cause of the universe to be an eternal deity with infinite power. This would eliminate Superman, Hercules, Batman etc… etc… etc… as they are not eternal, nor do they hold infinite power. I will worry about what God at a later time. Right now the debate with you is God/no God.
I sleep just fine.
Um, no, you put the "Free for All" thread in the "General Discussion" folder, and not one of our skepticism folders. Bad choice on your part.
(bill) What are talking about? The topic is free for all. You still have to trump observed theory with more then admitted atheistic speculation based on nothing.
Another bad choice on your part is to attempt to tell one of the Administrators what the rules of the forum are.
(bill) Um, the topic is free for all. That does not mean that speculation can not trump observed theory.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 21:31:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Well for the shake of the debate I declared the first cause of the universe to be an eternal deity with infinite power.
Indeed, I know you just "declared" it to be so, rather than give us any logical reasons why it would be so.quote:
I will worry about what God at a later time. Right now the debate with you is God/no God.
We already settled that at 50/50.quote:
What are talking about? The topic is free for all. You still have to trump observed theory with more then admitted atheistic speculation based on nothing.
What "observed theory?" I don't even know what that term means. If you're talking about God, then you're wrong. If you're talking about "cause and effect theory," then you're still wrong, as others have described.quote:
Um, the topic is free for all. That does not mean that speculation can not trump observed theory.
The topic is "Free for All" and the folder it's in is "General Discussion," so I'd like to start talking about my mother-in-law's habit of falling asleep in a chair while watching the news, despite the fact she knows it makes her neck hurt (it makes my neck hurt just looking at her all bent over like that). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 21:43:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Bill wrote: quote:
But you just assume that time, as we know it, did not exist before BB. You speculate that time was distorted before BB, when you truly have no clue, or proof of any of this.
We've said that we do not know everything, and indeed we don't. However, to say we have “no clue or proof” in regards to time becoming distorted is simply wrong. We do know that time can and does become distorted and that time is connected to space.
quote:
If true it has merely demonstrated that the particle moved from one state of existence to another. So in the end you have evidence for the ability of particles at the atomic level to move from one state of existence to another and the possibility of two different states of existence.
Huh? How do you come to that conclusion? Don't you understand – the math of Quantum physics sets up probabilities, and things can only be predicted by probability. And on the molecular scale, things become harder and harder to predict. It really is tossing a wrench in intuitive ideas about cause and effect. And math trumps common sense any day.
Bill, seriously, you don't understand the science. Stop pretending you do. If you have a real interest in understanding it, then try reading some of the science books that have been recommended in this discussion.
And are you going to just keep going on about the “theory of Cause and Effect” as if it were a scientific law like gravity? It's a damn philosophical principle. Not a law. Not a scientific theory.
quote:
We've said that we do not know everything,
(bill) Noted.
quote:
and indeed we don't. However, to say we have “no clue or proof” in regards to time becoming distorted is simply wrong.
(bill) I said you had no proof that time was distorted before the BB. Dave W. states that “we cannot know” therefore all options are “equally likely.” Therefore your assumption that cause and effect, which is an observed phenomena, should be trumped by pure speculation that cause and effect is nonexistent before bb, is not based on science, but bias.
quote:
We do know that time can and does become distorted and that time is connected to space.
(bill) Even if true that does not mean that you know for sure that time was distorted before BB, just that you speculate that it might have been and that is not science. Just ask Dave, who said that “we cannot know” and therefore all options were “equally likely”.
And quantum physics does not explain the existence of the particle, nor does the atheist have any idea how that particle turns into the entire universe and how the matter becomes life itself
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 21:57:39 [Permalink]
|
So Bill, you keep getting on us for speculation, but are you saying that it is not speculation to say "a god must have done it"? We've already settled the question of whether a supernatural creator of some kind exists. The answer is: maybe, maybe not.
And yet you mock us for our speculations left and right(not to mention you get confused between when we are actually speculating and when we are talking about hard science), as if our speculations about a purely material universe were any less than your speculations about god/s. Don't you see that this has all been dragged out for not? The final answer backed by current evidence is properly "We don't know" - which was said in this discussion so long ago, I don't even remember who said it first. But it sure wasn't you.
What makes the existence of your god a more likely speculation than anything else? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/04/2006 21:57:59 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 23:16:53 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
The final answer backed by current evidence is properly "We don't know" - which was said in this discussion so long ago, I don't even remember who said it first. But it sure wasn't you.
I said it!
And clearly you have finally reached the same conclusion the rest of us have about Bill.
So, let me ask you, am I still a jerk for being blunt and rude to Bill?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2006 : 00:08:40 [Permalink]
|
For the purpose of this discussion, I will grant you that a being created our universe. What I want to discuss is your position that this being has to be an eternal deity with infinite power.
That this deity has to be eternal is, logically, easily shown wrong. If an eternal deity with infinite power was required to create the initial matter of a universe, there is no guarantee that this deity created our universe. The deity might simply have created the universe where subsequently a mortal pimply pizza-delivery-boy (or insert your “creator” of choice here) created our universe. You can always insert several of these “mortal” intermediate steps – an infinite amount of them, actually. In this case you are an infinite amount of time away from an eternal creator creating anything. Logically, this would mean that matter has always existed. And if matter has always existed, there is really no need for a creator, is there?
Also ponder this: if the deity existed infinitely long before the creation of our universe, there is no guarantee that it still exists. It might have been consumed in the creation of our universe. It might have died 3 seconds ago. Given that this deity has infinite power, it could even have died an infinite amount of time before our universe was created.
As to your assertion that the deity creator of our universe has infinite power – why would it have to have that? The only power it really needs is to be able to create matter. It might not have the power to interact with our universe at all. There is no logical reason why it should have to be able to do this. Do you think you could take the time to respond to this? Using logic? I.e. could you explain logically why the creator of our universe has to be eternal and have infinite power?
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2006 : 00:59:03 [Permalink]
|
Fuckin' thread's gettin' dumber & dumber. And repetitious to the point of despair. So, I feel called upon to help it along a little.... See if I can get it just a little bit dumber still.
If the universe has some sort of supernatural cause, such as a deity or something, what end might might that entity have had in mind when it created such a gigantic mish-mash of matter as well anti-matter without which the Starship Enterprise could never have gotten off the figurative ground?
If the universe has some sort of supernatural cause, such as a deity or something, what the hell was the idiot thinking when it invented black holes, that suck up everything including light? This has a Divine Purpose? If so, what might it be?
The universe is currently thought to be some 13 to 15 billion years old, if I'm not mistaken, and we are supposed to have been created in the image of God. If so, what took the fool so long? Why not just magic up the whole shebang, perhaps some 6,000 years ago, as the brainwashed constantly tell us, and have done with it? Why all the screwing around? Couldn't the almighty creator make up it's mind? Sort'a makes being in the image of such a wishy-washy deity not such a great state of being, huh?
As Bill, does not seem interested in TalkOrigins' well referenced essay on the Big Bang Theory, and as that same Bill will not open any link short of being at gunpoint anyway, how can he be so certain that the universe has some sort of supernatural cause, such as a deity or something, without knowing quite well the scientific point of view?
If the universe has some sort of supernatural cause, such as a deity or something, and if that universe was indeed created some 6.000 years ago, as the brainwashed constantly tell us, why are all of the of world's creation myths different? It would make a lot more sense to simply give everybody the same cerebral douch and eliminate all of the confusion, not to mention the shoot, hack & stab.
If the universe has some sort of supernatural cause, such as a deity or something, and that deity plays a major role in our lives, as we are constantly reminded, why does it allow full-of-shit philosophers to drive the faithful bonkers by speculating upon such things as how many angles can fornicate on the head of a pin?
There. Are we now even dumber, or what?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2006 : 06:47:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
cerebral douche
Neat! |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
