|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 11:07 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:35 am
I was reading the comic on pornograpghy, and it actually says that God made sins so that we would not be enslaved!
That's a little hipocritical, don't you think?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:04 am
a girl i tried to explain evolution to said that"ur family may be monkys but mine never were". like it was an insult lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:49 am
Jite a girl i tried to explain evolution to said that"ur family may be monkys but mine never were". like it was an insult lol So that means her family came from dirt mrgreen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:19 pm
shadowpunk360 i think the stupidest one it "if we evolved from monkys y are their still monkys" evil evil IDIOT!! ......its not like there was ONE group of monkys they lived in diffrent places and EVOLVED diffrently even then. stressed ....^_~ lol im a creationist and that even bugs me....according to evolution we didnt evolve from them we had a common ansestor...like if ur gonna knock something at least know about it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:06 am
LadyInTheRose My idiot father told me Dinosaurs we're mentioned in the bible. When I asked where, he abrubtly changed the subject and proceeded to tell me I am going to hell. blaugh . thy are talked about in job 40 the "behemoth" best fits a dinasaure....The word "dinosaur" is not found anywhere in the Bible. This is because the word "Dinosaur" was not invented until the mid 1800's. The "King James Bible" was translated into English in 1611. - So we would not expect to find the word "dinosaur."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:26 am
degus2222 LadyInTheRose My idiot father told me Dinosaurs we're mentioned in the bible. When I asked where, he abrubtly changed the subject and proceeded to tell me I am going to hell. blaugh . thy are talked about in job 40 the "behemoth" best fits a dinasaure....The word "dinosaur" is not found anywhere in the Bible. This is because the word "Dinosaur" was not invented until the mid 1800's. The "King James Bible" was translated into English in 1611. - So we would not expect to find the word "dinosaur." Behemoth is a monster, his description matches no known dinosaur. Or any of our understanding of what is possible for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:59 pm
redem degus2222 LadyInTheRose My idiot father told me Dinosaurs we're mentioned in the bible. When I asked where, he abrubtly changed the subject and proceeded to tell me I am going to hell. blaugh . thy are talked about in job 40 the "behemoth" best fits a dinasaure....The word "dinosaur" is not found anywhere in the Bible. This is because the word "Dinosaur" was not invented until the mid 1800's. The "King James Bible" was translated into English in 1611. - So we would not expect to find the word "dinosaur." Behemoth is a monster, his description matches no known dinosaur. Or any of our understanding of what is possible for them. Tanniyn occurs 28 times in the Bible and is normally translated “dragon.” It is also translated “serpent,” “sea monster,” “dinosaur,” “great creature,” and “reptile" qoute from http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtmlso would that not also be 28 times that Dinosaur could have been in the bible??? Apatosaurus fits the discription does it not??? plant-eater four big legs big stronge body big tail and if you think it doesnt thats all good cuz thats why its a theory as to what it is
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:36 pm
What's really the point of finding all of the lamest creationist arguments? I've had plenty of evolutionists give really lame arguments too. Sometimes people get alittle to arrogant and close-minded and just try to blow up at the other person and just say something so they hope it sounds insulting. If we all got to the core issues and the real arguments, then we'd really get something done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 4:10 am
swimbackdanman What's really the point of finding all of the lamest creationist arguments? I've had plenty of evolutionists give really lame arguments too. Sometimes people get alittle to arrogant and close-minded and just try to blow up at the other person and just say something so they hope it sounds insulting. If we all got to the core issues and the real arguments, then we'd really get something done. Amusement mostly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:18 am
One of the funniest arguments I've ever seen comes from IIDB. The thread in which it was posted still exists, albeit slightly mangled over the years, and most of the posts have had their poster information lost. It does remain somewhere in their Elsewhere forum, however. Fortunately, there's an easier source for it - it was posted on FSTDT (although I didn't know this until yesterday - I haven't read through the complete archives of that wonderful site. Yet.) It's a truly classic argument - while most arguments are devoid of science and logic, this one truly takes the biscuit, the cake, the prize and the piss - it's ignorant of far, far more than usual. Without further ado, I present to you the Argument from Bull. Eternal Did you know that all bulls are males? How can these bulls mate to have more bulls? It's your funeral evolutionists. Admit evolution is a pathetic fantasy created by scientists because they can't accept God. Eternal [After being told 'they mate with cows, you idiot'] Then, why don't the bulls that are born have some bull like features and cow spots? If a bull mates with a cow, wouldn't you get a female eventually? Evolution is dead water. The original thread has been moved, so the links from those pages are no longer valid - I'd try to track down the original thread again, but IIDB seems to either be very very slow or be down at the moment. It is probably the second funniest, saddest and lamest argument I've seen, and you're probably all familiar with it. I'm sure you're all even more familiar with the FSTDT Post of the Year 2005 (warning: comments thread contains a very nasty pun), which beats Eternal's offering in every way. But posting that seems unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:14 am
LadyInTheRose My idiot father told me Dinosaurs we're mentioned in the bible. When I asked where, he abrubtly changed the subject and proceeded to tell me I am going to hell. blaugh . I asked my RE teacher why dinosaurs weren't in the Bible, she said they mentioned big lizards... That could've beena Komodo dragon for all we know? My Nana and cousin have told me that I'll go to Hell for saying God doesn't exist lol XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:15 am
Worst argument I've ever heard is "Because the bible says so."
How lame stare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:45 pm
degus2222 redem degus2222 LadyInTheRose My idiot father told me Dinosaurs we're mentioned in the bible. When I asked where, he abrubtly changed the subject and proceeded to tell me I am going to hell. blaugh . thy are talked about in job 40 the "behemoth" best fits a dinasaure....The word "dinosaur" is not found anywhere in the Bible. This is because the word "Dinosaur" was not invented until the mid 1800's. The "King James Bible" was translated into English in 1611. - So we would not expect to find the word "dinosaur." Behemoth is a monster, his description matches no known dinosaur. Or any of our understanding of what is possible for them. Tanniyn occurs 28 times in the Bible and is normally translated “dragon.” It is also translated “serpent,” “sea monster,” “dinosaur,” “great creature,” and “reptile" qoute from http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtmlso would that not also be 28 times that Dinosaur could have been in the bible??? Apatosaurus fits the discription does it not??? plant-eater four big legs big stronge body big tail and if you think it doesnt thats all good cuz thats why its a theory as to what it is most respectable theologians think behemoth was refering to a hippo. Funny enough, they think the "cedar like tail" was actually refering ot the hippo's p***s!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:41 am
chrisoya One of the funniest arguments I've ever seen comes from IIDB. The thread in which it was posted still exists, albeit slightly mangled over the years, and most of the posts have had their poster information lost. It does remain somewhere in their Elsewhere forum, however. Fortunately, there's an easier source for it - it was posted on FSTDT (although I didn't know this until yesterday - I haven't read through the complete archives of that wonderful site. Yet.) It's a truly classic argument - while most arguments are devoid of science and logic, this one truly takes the biscuit, the cake, the prize and the piss - it's ignorant of far, far more than usual. Without further ado, I present to you the Argument from Bull. Eternal Did you know that all bulls are males? How can these bulls mate to have more bulls? It's your funeral evolutionists. Admit evolution is a pathetic fantasy created by scientists because they can't accept God. Eternal [After being told 'they mate with cows, you idiot'] Then, why don't the bulls that are born have some bull like features and cow spots? If a bull mates with a cow, wouldn't you get a female eventually? Evolution is dead water. The original thread has been moved, so the links from those pages are no longer valid - I'd try to track down the original thread again, but IIDB seems to either be very very slow or be down at the moment. It is probably the second funniest, saddest and lamest argument I've seen, and you're probably all familiar with it. I'm sure you're all even more familiar with the FSTDT Post of the Year 2005 (warning: comments thread contains a very nasty pun), which beats Eternal's offering in every way. But posting that seems unnecessary. *Twitch* I declare this post the winner. I cannot imagine how anything could beat those two "arguments".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
