Anyone else notice?

[Neotrotsky]

You are ******* insane

You don't think it was evil what she did?

Oh yes, I forgot- lower standards for the left

She is some hooker and not a leader of anyone.

You are insane

She was used by the leaders as a symbol, de facto a leader for the moment

You are disingenuous to yourself

Interesting that she is just a "hooker" NOW

Before she was a "single mother-working her way through college-gang raped by white privileged males"
Until the truth came out

Too bad for the left, she was, for the moment, a symbol of what the left thinks is "wrong" in the US

Truth is hard for the left, in fact it is their enemy

 

[rightwinger]

Did you ever notice that posters make broad generic observations about the other side but never seem to back them up?

Yep....and it frustrates the hell out of me.
But you ceretainly can not deny that it happens on both sides.

Absolutely...especially when it involves sex

 

[jillian]

You don't think it was evil what she did?

Oh yes, I forgot- lower standards for the left

stop applying your double standard to others. it isn't left/right no matter how much you try to make it so.

and yes, what she did was evil and disgusting, not just because of what she did to the young men involved, but because of what it does to the credibility of women who actually are raped and sexually abused.

any questions?

 

[Truthmatters]

You don't think it was evil what she did?

Oh yes, I forgot- lower standards for the left

She is some hooker and not a leader of anyone.

You are insane

She was used by the leaders as a symbol, de facto a leader for the moment

You are disingenuous to yourself

Interesting that she is just a "hooker" NOW

Before she was a "single mother-working her way through college-gang raped by white privileged males"
Until the truth came out

Too bad for the left, she was, for the moment, a symbol of what the left thinks is "wrong" in the US

Truth is hard for the left, in fact it is their enemy

No you idiot she was what appeared to be a victim of a crime.

That is NOT a leader of any kind you dishonest piece of shit.


You see some people lie about crime for money.

Just like Tom Delay did.

He was your leader you idiot and no convoluted thinking has to be brought to bare to make that statement.

 

[Jarhead]

Did you ever notice that posters make broad generic observations about the other side but never seem to back them up?

Yep....and it frustrates the hell out of me.
But you ceretainly can not deny that it happens on both sides.

Absolutely...especially when it involves sex

Right or left...all men are perverts.

(And all women are bisexual)

 

[Neotrotsky]

She is some hooker and not a leader of anyone.

You are insane

She was used by the leaders as a symbol, de facto a leader for the moment

You are disingenuous to yourself

Interesting that she is just a "hooker" NOW

Before she was a "single mother-working her way through college-gang raped by white privileged males"
Until the truth came out

Too bad for the left, she was, for the moment, a symbol of what the left thinks is "wrong" in the US

Truth is hard for the left, in fact it is their enemy

No you idiot she was what appeared to be a victim of a crime.

That is NOT a leader of any kind you dishonest piece of shit.


You see some people lie about crime for money.

Just like Tom Delay did.

He was your leader you idiot and no convoluted thinking has to be brought to bare to make that statement.

Yes, yes we know exactly how the left thinks of her now

She was just a hooker





Sad how the left tosses aside their useful idiots
Speaking of- what ever happened to Sheehan?

 

[8537]

Right or left...all men are perverts.

Followed by...

(And all women are bisexual)

Priceless!

 

[Neotrotsky]

You don't think it was evil what she did?

Oh yes, I forgot- lower standards for the left

stop applying your double standard to others. it isn't left/right no matter how much you try to make it so.

and yes, what she did was evil and disgusting, not just because of what she did to the young men involved, but because of what it does to the credibility of women who actually are raped and sexually abused.

any questions?

Really not left or right

So you think if the races were reversed it would have got as much national attention?

Honestly, do you really believe that ?

 

[M14 Shooter]

How do you know that God didn't cause the Big Bang?
if god caused the big bang, why doesnt the bible refer to the other planets or galaxies? also the bible says god created the universe in 6 days, science has proven that the universe was not created in 6 days.

This doesnt mean a thing.
The Bible isnt about the entire universe, its about God's relationship with man on Earth.
This, the non-inclusion of information about 'elsewhere' is meaningless.

All of which is a direct, if distant, result of the Big Bang. See above.

once again, then why doesnt the bible explain what an earthquake is instead of it being left to assumption

Why would it? The Bible isnt about plate tectonics, its about God's relationship with man on Earth

Why not? Nothing in the Bible specifies that Earth is the only place that God created life.
the bible states the god created the following:
- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
no mention of the other planets, solar systems, not even by some stretch of the imagination.
-And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light
no mention that the sun is what creates light through it dispersal of energy, or that there is more than one sun in the universe.

Yes... and nothing here specifies that Earth is the only place that God created life.
So... what?

Before there was the theory of the big bang it was assumed god created the universe. then science came to understand the the big bang created the universe, and religion said well god created the big bang. like i said, religion keeps changing its story to adapt to the changes in realization of the world.

Religion doesnt "change its story" at all:
If God created everything, then whatever 'explanation' science may come up with for the creation of something is, necessarily, one of God's works.
:shrug:

Here an interesting question the, if "god" created man in his own image, who created god?

This question presents the assumption that God had to have been created by someone/something. There's no necessity in that, and so there's nothing interesting in the question.
Never mind that not being able to answer the question means nothing.

But if god is immortal, then why isnt man immortal? If man was created by god in his own image, then would it be suffice to say that man should be immortal as well?

1- How does the latter follow from the former?
2- Man -is- immortal, in his immortal soul.

There are so many holes like this in the creationism theory, how can it be true?

Like I said - whoever you copied this from isn't anywhere near as clever as you think he is.

 

[Common Sense]

How do you know that God didn't cause the Big Bang?
if god caused the big bang, why doesnt the bible refer to the other planets or galaxies? also the bible says god created the universe in 6 days, science has proven that the universe was not created in 6 days.

This doesnt mean a thing.
The Bible isnt about the entire universe, its about God's relationship with man on Earth.
This, the non-inclusion of information about 'elsewhere' is meaningless.

nice deflection, but you still didnt answer how the world was created in 6 days.

All of which is a direct, if distant, result of the Big Bang. See above.

once again, then why doesnt the bible explain what an earthquake is instead of it being left to assumption

Why would it? The Bible isnt about plate tectonics, its about God's relationship with man on Earth

you claim the bible can explain everything simply by saying god did it. why doesnt it explain everything then?

Yes... and nothing here specifies that Earth is the only place that God created life.
So... what?


Religion doesnt "change its story" at all:
If God created everything, then whatever 'explanation' science may come up with for the creation of something is, necessarily, one of God's works.
:shrug:


This question presents the assumption that God had to have been created by someone/something. There's no necessity in that, and so there's nothing interesting in the question.
Never mind that not being able to answer the question means nothing.

But if god is immortal, then why isnt man immortal? If man was created by god in his own image, then would it be suffice to say that man should be immortal as well?

1- How does the latter follow from the former?
2- Man -is- immortal, in his immortal soul.

1 - prove there is a soul
2 - prove that a soul is immoratl
3 - do this all using science

There are so many holes like this in the creationism theory, how can it be true?

Like I said - whoever you copied this from isn't anywhere near as clever as you think he is.

also if man can clone life, hence he can create life, then isnt man then god?

 

[Common Sense]

Things evolve, there is no question about that. If you doubt it, go to a museum in Europe. Armour of the knights would not fit men of today. Recognize that many of the knights were considered to be the warriors of the time, and as such needed to be larger than the general population. Knights armour in Europe museums is generally designed for someone a little over 5 ft tall. Many of the larger, stronger men of today are over 6 ft.
That's an evolution within just a couple hundred years.
What about horses? Skeletons of ancient horses have been found that are little over 2 ft tall. We certainly wouldn't be able to ride those horses, but the horses have evolved because they needed to be large and strong enough to evade their predators. In the process of horses and other "prey" animals getting larger, predator animals have also evolved to be larger so that they can get a meal.

heres another great article supporting evolution. do you simply think you are smarter than all of those people who can show that evolution exists and has been proven to exist?

Early Theories of Evolution: Evidence of Evolution

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_proof.htm

 

[asterism]

How do you know that God didn't cause the Big Bang?
if god caused the big bang, why doesnt the bible refer to the other planets or galaxies? also the bible says god created the universe in 6 days, science has proven that the universe was not created in 6 days.

This doesnt mean a thing.
The Bible isnt about the entire universe, its about God's relationship with man on Earth.
This, the non-inclusion of information about 'elsewhere' is meaningless.

nice deflection, but you still didnt answer how the world was created in 6 days.


Why would it? The Bible isnt about plate tectonics, its about God's relationship with man on Earth

you claim the bible can explain everything simply by saying god did it. why doesnt it explain everything then?

Yes... and nothing here specifies that Earth is the only place that God created life.
So... what?


Religion doesnt "change its story" at all:
If God created everything, then whatever 'explanation' science may come up with for the creation of something is, necessarily, one of God's works.
:shrug:


This question presents the assumption that God had to have been created by someone/something. There's no necessity in that, and so there's nothing interesting in the question.
Never mind that not being able to answer the question means nothing.


1- How does the latter follow from the former?
2- Man -is- immortal, in his immortal soul.

1 - prove there is a soul
2 - prove that a soul is immoratl
3 - do this all using science

There are so many holes like this in the creationism theory, how can it be true?

Like I said - whoever you copied this from isn't anywhere near as clever as you think he is.

also if man can clone life, hence he can create life, then isnt man then god?

Get Your Own Dirt!

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"

But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."

The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"

 

[Jarhead]

Things evolve, there is no question about that. If you doubt it, go to a museum in Europe. Armour of the knights would not fit men of today. Recognize that many of the knights were considered to be the warriors of the time, and as such needed to be larger than the general population. Knights armour in Europe museums is generally designed for someone a little over 5 ft tall. Many of the larger, stronger men of today are over 6 ft.
That's an evolution within just a couple hundred years.
What about horses? Skeletons of ancient horses have been found that are little over 2 ft tall. We certainly wouldn't be able to ride those horses, but the horses have evolved because they needed to be large and strong enough to evade their predators. In the process of horses and other "prey" animals getting larger, predator animals have also evolved to be larger so that they can get a meal.

heres another great article supporting evolution. do you simply think you are smarter than all of those people who can show that evolution exists and has been proven to exist?

Early Theories of Evolution: Evidence of Evolution

Why most scientists support the theory of evolution

I posted this in response to you yesterday and you either did not see it or opted to pass on it...but I would like a response if you have a chance:

Why is it that science can change to adapt to new discoveries but religion is villified if it does?

3 months ago, life without certain elements was deemed by the science community as impossible. Then, here on earth, they found a life form that can survive and reproduce without such elements.

If Religion did NOT adapt to new discoveries, wouldn't you be more likely to villify them for NOT rationalizing such discoveries...and therfore ignoring such discoveries?

Thanks. And Merry Christmas to you CS. You have been great to deabte with.

 

[Common Sense]

Religion is the written word, and is not suppose to be questioned. Science has never claimed to be perfect or 100% correct all the time. as new evidence is found to be true, theories are adjusted.

Religion on the other had is not to be questioned. as many people put it, the word of god is unquestionable. Science exists to be questioned. You never heard scientists say, well it wasnt like that before, so we wont change our thinking. Science by its own definition is meant to be evolving and changing all the time. Religion does not share that same sentiment. When someone questions that which is in the bible, people immediately cry foul.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Well, I'm very skeptical by nature. Star Trek, sci-fi fan, etc. I believe in reasoned deduction, analyzing all facts at hand, etc. However, I am also a Christian and have felt God move in ways that are very difficult to relate to others that haven't felt it too.

I believe there are many things beyond science. Many things. How someone can look at the wondrous universe and believe that everything can be explained through science I simply don't know.

Finally, I was speaking to a doctor I know once. This guy is a leader in IVF research. I told him that I thought it was wonderful how he's able to help people to have children that otherwise might not. Know what he told me? He said "Science is great, but only God can make a baby." Quite refreshing and it was great to hear someone in his position have that opinion.

Interesting stuff.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Religion on the other had is not to be questioned. as many people put it, the word of god is unquestionable.

Yes. That's why there is only one religion, and only one interpretation of that religion.

 

[rikules]

When ever someone on the left is accused of Rape or sexual misconduct the liberals always defend them? Make disparaging remarks about the charges and generally claim nothing important happened?

Of course if a Republican even smiles at a pretty girl those same people are all hot to prosecute for something, anything.

your perception is distorted by your blind and mindless hatred for all things NOT conservative.


if you were a rational person you would notice that your side is just is bad.

what I DO notice is that people like YOU always defend your own side, no matter how badly they behave, while always attacking the other side for doing the same things...


people like you (mindless hate filled partisans) are the REAL problem with America

 

[bodecea]

Religion on the other had is not to be questioned. as many people put it, the word of god is unquestionable.

Yes. That's why there is only one religion, and only one interpretation of that religion.

Actually, you proved his point. Think about it a sec.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Religion on the other had is not to be questioned. as many people put it, the word of god is unquestionable.

Yes. That's why there is only one religion, and only one interpretation of that religion.

Actually, you proved his point. Think about it a sec.

No. I disproved it. If there was no room for question, there would be no other religion.

 

[bodecea]

Yes. That's why there is only one religion, and only one interpretation of that religion.

Actually, you proved his point. Think about it a sec.

No. I disproved it. If there was no room for question, there would be no other religion.

Actually, BECAUSE there is no room for question in a religion, people leave and start another...and another...and another. And they go hammer and tongs over their differences too.

As I said, you proved his point....sorry that you didn't see it on your own.