The Creation Museum
- Thread starter ThaG
- Start date
And your "interpretations" are usually the fossil records history or specific timeline.
In my opinion it doesn't disprove evolution. What it does is create a situation where you ultimately go in a loop. The loop being you attempt to reconstruct events of the past that may be interpreted wrong.
Thats not the question you asked.
Here is your attempt to lead me on and trap me. I didn't fall for it.
Here is the second attempt which you completely side stepped by presenting you with a similar response to the one I gave you.
In my opinion it doesn't disprove evolution. What it does is create a situation where you ultimately go in a loop. The loop being you attempt to reconstruct events of the past that may be interpreted wrong.
Thats not the question you asked.
Here is your attempt to lead me on and trap me. I didn't fall for it.
Here is the second attempt which you completely side stepped by presenting you with a similar response to the one I gave you.
No, it isn't a cop out. It is logic on my behalf and error and stupidity on yours.
So the problem would lie on nature VS nurture and if the PARENTS are RESPONSIBLE for the "ruining the education" of the child. If the museum just opened less than 2 years ago, on what grounds can you say the museum is going to ruin a childs education?
I keep saying the same things over and over. For YEARS I have been saying that the majority of siccness members do NOT have basic critical reading and thinking skills.
I am NOT saying YOU are not getting an education. You made a comment about MY education and I basically said at least I am getting one. I am saying that no matter what YOU think about the educational path I chose, I am at least doing something and it doesn't matter what YOU say about it. With your reply you have simply proven to me and the rest of the board that you are an academic that lacks basic social skills and comprehension. Do you understand concepts such as sarcasm or irony?
ThaG, ALL B.S. ASIDE, how many friends or associates do you have? List three words your friends would use to describe you.
You prove me right again. This is EASY!
You openly stated those things, and your ideology is very much like nazi propaganda.
There is also a good correlation between science and the number of children. You are lying if you deny it.
Was religion teh cause of the population before and after the era of communism?
This is useless info and has little to do with what you were asked, and what you were asked come SOLELY from your own words.
No not at all.
If this is true, shouldn't we also place emphasis on the nationality/origin of these people? Why are you placing emphasis on something dynamic instead of something static? What is your take on the FACT that many, if not the majority, of adherents to judeo christian religions are WHITE/EUROPEAN?
ThaG MANY religions SHUN sex. There are several religions that see sex simply as a desire of the flesh and believe it is fully carnal. In other instances, some religions believe sex is for PROCREATION ONLY. You don't understand this because you DON'T know anything about these religions, and since you know little about them, why are you saying what they do or don't believe?
Some do, some don't. It depends on the church dogma/doctrine pertaining to sex and procreation. What the majority of churches discourage is premarital sex, and in some cases encourage complete abstinence. These are more powerful forms of prevention and birth control.
No, some churches or some religions see sex as a bad thing. And if our sole function is to transmit our genes to as many individuals as possible, WHY THE FUCK DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE POPULATION? We are simply doing what "evolution" chose for us to do.
You just said our sole function is to transmit our genes etc, yet you want to LIMIT this function! LMAO!!!!!!!!!! YOU HAVE LOST YOUR ARGUMENT!
SEE ABOVE! LMAO!
So the problem would lie on nature VS nurture and if the PARENTS are RESPONSIBLE for the "ruining the education" of the child. If the museum just opened less than 2 years ago, on what grounds can you say the museum is going to ruin a childs education?
I keep saying the same things over and over. For YEARS I have been saying that the majority of siccness members do NOT have basic critical reading and thinking skills.
I am NOT saying YOU are not getting an education. You made a comment about MY education and I basically said at least I am getting one. I am saying that no matter what YOU think about the educational path I chose, I am at least doing something and it doesn't matter what YOU say about it. With your reply you have simply proven to me and the rest of the board that you are an academic that lacks basic social skills and comprehension. Do you understand concepts such as sarcasm or irony?
ThaG, ALL B.S. ASIDE, how many friends or associates do you have? List three words your friends would use to describe you.
You prove me right again. This is EASY!
You openly stated those things, and your ideology is very much like nazi propaganda.
There is also a good correlation between science and the number of children. You are lying if you deny it.
Was religion teh cause of the population before and after the era of communism?
This is useless info and has little to do with what you were asked, and what you were asked come SOLELY from your own words.
No not at all.
If this is true, shouldn't we also place emphasis on the nationality/origin of these people? Why are you placing emphasis on something dynamic instead of something static? What is your take on the FACT that many, if not the majority, of adherents to judeo christian religions are WHITE/EUROPEAN?
ThaG MANY religions SHUN sex. There are several religions that see sex simply as a desire of the flesh and believe it is fully carnal. In other instances, some religions believe sex is for PROCREATION ONLY. You don't understand this because you DON'T know anything about these religions, and since you know little about them, why are you saying what they do or don't believe?
Some do, some don't. It depends on the church dogma/doctrine pertaining to sex and procreation. What the majority of churches discourage is premarital sex, and in some cases encourage complete abstinence. These are more powerful forms of prevention and birth control.
No, some churches or some religions see sex as a bad thing. And if our sole function is to transmit our genes to as many individuals as possible, WHY THE FUCK DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE POPULATION? We are simply doing what "evolution" chose for us to do.
You just said our sole function is to transmit our genes etc, yet you want to LIMIT this function! LMAO!!!!!!!!!! YOU HAVE LOST YOUR ARGUMENT!
SEE ABOVE! LMAO!
thaG. All BS aside. What are you trying to ask me? I do NOT understand what you are asking me, and your most recent post only makes it more confusing. I took a statement from Park, and you took the statement and asked me a question. I answered, and you asked some more. I answered some more. Do you not understand my answers?
is there any chance what I am posting will ever get into your stubborn head?
I am definitely not your average siccness member
You will not like what I am going to say but I will say it: to study science you need brain, it is absolutely necessary, but it is not absolutely necessary if you study humanities
Theoretical mathematicians look down upon applied ones. Mathematicians and life scientists look down upon economists. Most scientists look down upon humanities. There is a reason for each of these and it is one and the same - one of the fields requires much more intelligence than the other.
I don't know what my friends would say about me. Smart is one of the words for sure.
This is your opinion, but I don't hate jews and afroamericans so I am the last person to be called NAZI.
Anyway, the truth is truth, no matter of what the prevailing ideology is
There is a good correlation between the number of children who survive until adulthood and science. The problem is that people didn't stop having so many after science advanced to that point and the reason is not science, it is religion.
Religious people have more children than atheists.
Fact
Ignorant people have more children than educated ones.
Fact
It didn't prevent the demographic explosion either. BTW China is the last country I consider when I say religion and illiteracy are the ultimate cause of overpopulation, Pakistan, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria, India and others are much better examples. USA is a particularly good example because there are both atheists and very religious people there and you can compare between the two groups
Since when is info useless? It is very closely related to what I was asked, you just feel uncomfortable in the face of evidence so you prefer to dismiss it
It is
Do you understand what using 30% more resources than the planet can provide means? When population is both rapidly growing and industrializing?
When each woman in Africa is having 8 children and they are doomed to grow illiterate and have just as many themselves? Kids are being born at a rate at which it is impossible to educate them to stop the process.
It is terribly late and the only real solution that will help us avoid the catastrophe is to get rid of 5 billions. There is no other way.
Something I don't know if you're aware of - the Earth has warmed with 1 degree (normal degree, not a Fahrenheit one). There is an additional 0.5 degrees warming from gases we've already pumped in the atmosphere and yet another 0.5 degrees from gases we will pump in the atmosphere even if we take measures to reduce them starting tomorrow.
These are 2 fucking degrees of global warming which means Greenland and East Antarctic will melt and sea level will rise 14 meters. There is no way this can be prevented, it's already too late unless we cut emissions 80%. This will not happen.
14 meters at minimum and at least 1 billion environmental refugees in a world of 10 billions. Think about it. These are facts, not the pointless BS by scientists who love apocalypse stories.
I am emphasizing on what matters, it is religion and education. Race is irrelevant.
I posted one paragraph that was meant to be read and answered as a whole. You took each sentence out of the context and answered it. Classic Creationist How-To-Distort-What-Our-Opponent-Is-Saying.
Read the whole paragraph and answer it
There is no contradiction because we're supposed to be smart enough to realize what the natural thing to do is and not do it if it's bad for us. Having less than 2 kids per woman is good, this is the reproduction birth rate. Having 5 children per woman is bad. We have to find a way to reduce the population ot 2 billions. These are facts. I know you don't like facts, because I haven't seen you use them much, but that's not my problem
I am definitely not your average siccness member
You will not like what I am going to say but I will say it: to study science you need brain, it is absolutely necessary, but it is not absolutely necessary if you study humanities
Theoretical mathematicians look down upon applied ones. Mathematicians and life scientists look down upon economists. Most scientists look down upon humanities. There is a reason for each of these and it is one and the same - one of the fields requires much more intelligence than the other.
I don't know what my friends would say about me. Smart is one of the words for sure.
This is your opinion, but I don't hate jews and afroamericans so I am the last person to be called NAZI.
Anyway, the truth is truth, no matter of what the prevailing ideology is
There is a good correlation between the number of children who survive until adulthood and science. The problem is that people didn't stop having so many after science advanced to that point and the reason is not science, it is religion.
Religious people have more children than atheists.
Fact
Ignorant people have more children than educated ones.
Fact
It didn't prevent the demographic explosion either. BTW China is the last country I consider when I say religion and illiteracy are the ultimate cause of overpopulation, Pakistan, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria, India and others are much better examples. USA is a particularly good example because there are both atheists and very religious people there and you can compare between the two groups
Since when is info useless? It is very closely related to what I was asked, you just feel uncomfortable in the face of evidence so you prefer to dismiss it
It is
Do you understand what using 30% more resources than the planet can provide means? When population is both rapidly growing and industrializing?
When each woman in Africa is having 8 children and they are doomed to grow illiterate and have just as many themselves? Kids are being born at a rate at which it is impossible to educate them to stop the process.
It is terribly late and the only real solution that will help us avoid the catastrophe is to get rid of 5 billions. There is no other way.
Something I don't know if you're aware of - the Earth has warmed with 1 degree (normal degree, not a Fahrenheit one). There is an additional 0.5 degrees warming from gases we've already pumped in the atmosphere and yet another 0.5 degrees from gases we will pump in the atmosphere even if we take measures to reduce them starting tomorrow.
These are 2 fucking degrees of global warming which means Greenland and East Antarctic will melt and sea level will rise 14 meters. There is no way this can be prevented, it's already too late unless we cut emissions 80%. This will not happen.
14 meters at minimum and at least 1 billion environmental refugees in a world of 10 billions. Think about it. These are facts, not the pointless BS by scientists who love apocalypse stories.
I am emphasizing on what matters, it is religion and education. Race is irrelevant.
I posted one paragraph that was meant to be read and answered as a whole. You took each sentence out of the context and answered it. Classic Creationist How-To-Distort-What-Our-Opponent-Is-Saying.
Read the whole paragraph and answer it
There is no contradiction because we're supposed to be smart enough to realize what the natural thing to do is and not do it if it's bad for us. Having less than 2 kids per woman is good, this is the reproduction birth rate. Having 5 children per woman is bad. We have to find a way to reduce the population ot 2 billions. These are facts. I know you don't like facts, because I haven't seen you use them much, but that's not my problem
You didn't answer anything because you weren't asked anything to begin with, and you never said anything relevant.
ParkBoyz claimed there is no evidence for abiogenesis, I told him he's wrong because there is and it is the fossil record which does not show any life forms until 3.7 BYa and doesn't show any oxygen in the atmosphere until approximately 2Bya, all organisms share the same genetic code, etc., you said the fossil record is wrong, I told you it can't be wrong because it is what it is, you kept going back and forth about how the fossil record is not a proof for anything, while the whole point was whether the fossil record supports anything else than abiogenesis and the answer is no, excluding panspermia (but even if panspermia happened, abiogenesis still happened somewhere else). BTW even panspermia for which we have very little evidence as of now is somethign we can test and it will be tested some day, that's for those saying it isn't science.
Anyway, I want to have discussions based on facts and evidence, not empty words and going back and forth over matters that have either been resolved decades or centuries ago or have no relevance to anything whatsoever. I don't get this and I'm starting to get mad at myself for wasting my time arguing with lunatics who refuse to listen to the scientific community as a whole and to reason and evidence, no matter how much of these you present to them
ParkBoyz claimed there is no evidence for abiogenesis, I told him he's wrong because there is and it is the fossil record which does not show any life forms until 3.7 BYa and doesn't show any oxygen in the atmosphere until approximately 2Bya, all organisms share the same genetic code, etc., you said the fossil record is wrong, I told you it can't be wrong because it is what it is, you kept going back and forth about how the fossil record is not a proof for anything, while the whole point was whether the fossil record supports anything else than abiogenesis and the answer is no, excluding panspermia (but even if panspermia happened, abiogenesis still happened somewhere else). BTW even panspermia for which we have very little evidence as of now is somethign we can test and it will be tested some day, that's for those saying it isn't science.
Anyway, I want to have discussions based on facts and evidence, not empty words and going back and forth over matters that have either been resolved decades or centuries ago or have no relevance to anything whatsoever. I don't get this and I'm starting to get mad at myself for wasting my time arguing with lunatics who refuse to listen to the scientific community as a whole and to reason and evidence, no matter how much of these you present to them
Who cares what an intellectually stagnated wretch thinks? Your thoughts will not be taken into consideration as they are the thoughts of a misguided drama queen. I and others have demonstrated effectively your lack of comprehension skills and analytical ability, so ignorance and illiteracy seem to inversely be attributes that you strut overtly while I haven't shown any such deficiencies..
What does this statement have to do with anything? YOU made the claim that this museum was going to ruin a childs education. I am making the claim that if the childs education is ruined, it will go back to the nature VS nurture debate and the PARENTS responsibilty. The article YOU referenced actually SUPPORTS what I am saying.
Now where is your evidence that THE MUSEUM is going to ruin a childs education? You made the claim now back it up.
You think you aren't. What you are is an academic who may quote all sorts of scientific data at the drop of a dime, yet you can't find your way out of a paper bag.
You sound like a zombie "brains....m..mo...more...br..brains..."
ThaG you know NOTHING of humantieis, psychology, criminology or law. Proof of this is when I said what I said about deja vu and you went back and DELETED your post.
Do you honestly believe I care about who looks down on who? LMAO! NONE of them are paying for my studies ThaG. Why would I care about what they say when law and psychology are things I enjoy? I couldn't care less about what others think, but you do. What will you say when they find out you haven't attended a world renown school such as Harvard, Stanford or Oxford? You'll commit suicide by hooking yourself up to some crazy contraption you invented in your uncles basement and you'll have "Mr. Spinny" in hand when they find your rotting corpse. That is your destiny. You are not destined to write articles, win a nobel prize or make a substantial contribution to society. You are will be forever bound to the siccness until your demise.
And STOP saying "suck it up." You aren't "THE FAMOUS GUY" or myself, and you make it sound gay as fuck.
You have solidified my assessment. What I did was ask you how many friends you had and you couldn't even give me a number. In addition, you couldn't even list three things what they would say about you, yet you actually listed a value or trait that YOU yourself actually believe you hold.
ThaG, much of your ideologies are directly link to nazism, and this is FACT not opinion. Do you understand what an ideology is?
How is the reason religion? You are going in circles.
If there are more religious people on the planet this is the only logical course.
What are you basing this on? A countries education system or your personal views?
That is not the question. The question is, Was religion the cause of the population before and after the era of communism?
A yes or no will suffice.
Thanks for back peddling! BTW, these countries problems are moreso directly linked to imperialism and economic mishaps than religion.
It has very little to do with what you were asked.
ThaG, when compared to other continents, where is Afrika ranked when it comes to infant mortality, life expectancy and accesability to doctors and hospitals?
More nazi mentality. Kill off all the darkies because they aren't fit for survival.
So is this a problem with population or is a problem of finding a better fuel source that won't cause these problems?
A world of 10 billions? The world has apprx 6 billion people. When do you expect a 4 billion hike?
I am emphasizing what matters, and EVERYTIME I ask you about race you AVOID the issue. If something like religion plays a pivitol role in all of this, you MUST also consider the nationality and make up of those who you consider the problem. At the end of the day, the problem is CAPITALISM and IMPERIALISM that has been implemented and SHOVED down the throats of EVERY country on this planet by WHITES/EUROPEANS. FACT.
No what you did was get murdered once again and now look to swindle your way out of it.
And if our sole function is to transmit our genes to as many individuals as possible, WHY THE FUCK DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE POPULATION? We are simply doing what "evolution" chose for us to do.
You just said our sole function is to transmit our genes etc, yet you want to LIMIT this function! LMAO!!!!!!!!!! YOU HAVE LOST YOUR ARGUMENT!
Now where is your evidence that THE MUSEUM is going to ruin a childs education? You made the claim now back it up.
You think you aren't. What you are is an academic who may quote all sorts of scientific data at the drop of a dime, yet you can't find your way out of a paper bag.
You sound like a zombie "brains....m..mo...more...br..brains..."
ThaG you know NOTHING of humantieis, psychology, criminology or law. Proof of this is when I said what I said about deja vu and you went back and DELETED your post.
Do you honestly believe I care about who looks down on who? LMAO! NONE of them are paying for my studies ThaG. Why would I care about what they say when law and psychology are things I enjoy? I couldn't care less about what others think, but you do. What will you say when they find out you haven't attended a world renown school such as Harvard, Stanford or Oxford? You'll commit suicide by hooking yourself up to some crazy contraption you invented in your uncles basement and you'll have "Mr. Spinny" in hand when they find your rotting corpse. That is your destiny. You are not destined to write articles, win a nobel prize or make a substantial contribution to society. You are will be forever bound to the siccness until your demise.
And STOP saying "suck it up." You aren't "THE FAMOUS GUY" or myself, and you make it sound gay as fuck.
You have solidified my assessment. What I did was ask you how many friends you had and you couldn't even give me a number. In addition, you couldn't even list three things what they would say about you, yet you actually listed a value or trait that YOU yourself actually believe you hold.
ThaG, much of your ideologies are directly link to nazism, and this is FACT not opinion. Do you understand what an ideology is?
How is the reason religion? You are going in circles.
If there are more religious people on the planet this is the only logical course.
What are you basing this on? A countries education system or your personal views?
That is not the question. The question is, Was religion the cause of the population before and after the era of communism?
A yes or no will suffice.
Thanks for back peddling! BTW, these countries problems are moreso directly linked to imperialism and economic mishaps than religion.
It has very little to do with what you were asked.
ThaG, when compared to other continents, where is Afrika ranked when it comes to infant mortality, life expectancy and accesability to doctors and hospitals?
More nazi mentality. Kill off all the darkies because they aren't fit for survival.
So is this a problem with population or is a problem of finding a better fuel source that won't cause these problems?
A world of 10 billions? The world has apprx 6 billion people. When do you expect a 4 billion hike?
I am emphasizing what matters, and EVERYTIME I ask you about race you AVOID the issue. If something like religion plays a pivitol role in all of this, you MUST also consider the nationality and make up of those who you consider the problem. At the end of the day, the problem is CAPITALISM and IMPERIALISM that has been implemented and SHOVED down the throats of EVERY country on this planet by WHITES/EUROPEANS. FACT.
No what you did was get murdered once again and now look to swindle your way out of it.
And if our sole function is to transmit our genes to as many individuals as possible, WHY THE FUCK DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE POPULATION? We are simply doing what "evolution" chose for us to do.
You just said our sole function is to transmit our genes etc, yet you want to LIMIT this function! LMAO!!!!!!!!!! YOU HAVE LOST YOUR ARGUMENT!
ParkBoyz said:
The fossil record is inadequate which is why the theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed and similar genetic code may simply point to common design. You have no proof!
sigh...
another sigh...
I don't need to know anything about something that has nothing to do with the real world. I deleted my post because I misunderstood yours and I apologize for that.
What, what?
A Nobel Prize is primarily the product of fortuitous circumstance and nobody is destined to win it. Moreover, even if you've made the great discovery that deserves a Nobel, there's no guarantee you'll ever get it, I know several people who've been waiting for their prize for decades and still haven't been recognized
lol
you have a monopoly over the phrase or what?
How do you define a friend? Give me a definition and a way to assess people based on it and I will tell you. That's how science works, suck it up!
Are my ideologies directly linked to nazism or you think they are superficially similar and because in your mind Nazi is the worst label you can put to a person, you use it for me.
I would say that Nazism is tightly linked to Christianity too, but I don't see you emphasizing it that much...
Read again what I posted and you might see why I am not going in circles.
Nobody talks about how many religious people are out there, I'm talking about children per woman. Stop distorting my words
China is the only exemption from the rule, but China had 200 millions back in the middle ages so it's huge population today is not the result of anything else other than a huge population in the beginning. Everywhere else in the world the reason is religion - Africa, Latin America, the Muslim world, India, everywhere
1. these are tightly linked to religion
2. religion is still tightly linked no matter how many lies you will post claiming the opposite
Where is Africa ranked when it comes to population growth rate, birth rate, education and number of atheists?
quite the opposite, kill a lot of every group, more of those who need to be reduced more (there would very nice if there were no people in Central Africa or large areas in Indonesia for example, this is the only way to preserve tropical forests)
No, even if we find an alternative energy source, we still have the problems with deforestation, pollution, environment destruction, urbanization, etc. which are cause by overpopulation and nothing else.
More twisted logic and misinterpreted facts...
WHEN THE ICE MELTS, THE WORLD WILL BE 10 BILLIONS, it is close to 7 now...
again, capitalism and imperialism are closely linked to Christianity, you are lying if you deny it, and race is not an issue because it doesn't determine your intelligence and your ability to learn. To claim otherwise is nazism....
more and more lies and distorting my arguments....
another sigh...
I don't need to know anything about something that has nothing to do with the real world. I deleted my post because I misunderstood yours and I apologize for that.
What, what?
A Nobel Prize is primarily the product of fortuitous circumstance and nobody is destined to win it. Moreover, even if you've made the great discovery that deserves a Nobel, there's no guarantee you'll ever get it, I know several people who've been waiting for their prize for decades and still haven't been recognized
lol
you have a monopoly over the phrase or what?
How do you define a friend? Give me a definition and a way to assess people based on it and I will tell you. That's how science works, suck it up!
Are my ideologies directly linked to nazism or you think they are superficially similar and because in your mind Nazi is the worst label you can put to a person, you use it for me.
I would say that Nazism is tightly linked to Christianity too, but I don't see you emphasizing it that much...
Read again what I posted and you might see why I am not going in circles.
Nobody talks about how many religious people are out there, I'm talking about children per woman. Stop distorting my words
China is the only exemption from the rule, but China had 200 millions back in the middle ages so it's huge population today is not the result of anything else other than a huge population in the beginning. Everywhere else in the world the reason is religion - Africa, Latin America, the Muslim world, India, everywhere
1. these are tightly linked to religion
2. religion is still tightly linked no matter how many lies you will post claiming the opposite
Where is Africa ranked when it comes to population growth rate, birth rate, education and number of atheists?
quite the opposite, kill a lot of every group, more of those who need to be reduced more (there would very nice if there were no people in Central Africa or large areas in Indonesia for example, this is the only way to preserve tropical forests)
No, even if we find an alternative energy source, we still have the problems with deforestation, pollution, environment destruction, urbanization, etc. which are cause by overpopulation and nothing else.
More twisted logic and misinterpreted facts...
WHEN THE ICE MELTS, THE WORLD WILL BE 10 BILLIONS, it is close to 7 now...
again, capitalism and imperialism are closely linked to Christianity, you are lying if you deny it, and race is not an issue because it doesn't determine your intelligence and your ability to learn. To claim otherwise is nazism....
more and more lies and distorting my arguments....
So you prove once again that you can't back up your claims. Your entire argument is based on this museum and adverse effects on a childs education, yet you don't explain how but cite an article that has more to do with nature VS nurture than anything else.
SIGH...
SEE ABOVE.
To you, the only "real world" is science, but everything I listed branches off into science at some point. Do you NOT realize that LAW crosses into SCIENCE when you enter the realm of criminology or forensics? Do you not realize that Psychology has to do with science because you need so many science courses to major in it because you are dealing with the human brain, chemicals in the body and dna?
So when you say, "I don't need to know anything about something that has nothing to do with the real world", yet post something that is DIRECTLY linked to psychology and psychiatry, you make yourself look like a fool. You make yourself appear to be an even BIGGER fool when you jump in, are told you know nothing about the subject and delete your post.
You read it right.
Yes.
In your instance, a friend is a person that will tolerate you.
If they tolerate you they are your friend. If they don't drop a toaster in teh bath tub while you are bathing they are your friend.
The thing is, you can't even tell us about your friends because everyone reading your posts no you are socially impotent and this is why you drown yourself in science. ThaG you have NO social skills, and in the past I tried to tell you that in order to succeed you are going to have to learn how to talk to people, and you ADMIT that you don't know how to talk to people and fly off the handle.
No, your views are straight up nazi, and if I actually start going into specific things you have posted that shed light on the subject, you might actually realize the truth of my assessment. No, a nazi is not the worst you can be. The worst a person can be is a snitch or atheist.
In some instances funded by catholics, but the core of nazi ideology is actually the occult. You should know this, because you adhere to nazism.
You are going in circles. You are claiming religion doesn't enforce birth control, yet when I show you many religions DO enforce birth control you ignore. You are placing the blame on RELIGION, yet you also say our sole purpose is to spread our genes as much as possible. If that is the case, why blame religion for doing what you yourself claim we are designed to do?
No one is distorting your words, and your statement doesn't make any sense.
I asked you a direct question not a rhetorical one, so you either answer it or you can't. If you can't answer it, you show you know nothing about the problem.
So you once again back peddle and change your story. Thanks
Can you please explain to us how imperialism and economic mishaps are tightly linked to religion?
Kill off ethnic people and people of darker skin tones.
So you're saying GREED has NOTHING to do with deforestation, pollution etc? So you're saying imperialism and capitalism have NOTHING to do with these things? ThaG what religious groups are spear heading a movement to cut down rain forests? Are people cutting down rain forests to offer quality housing at good rates, or are they cutting down rain forrests for their own benefit?
More twisted logic and misinterpreted facts? You didn't even tell us WHEN the ice was going to melt, so if you didn't tell us, why would anyone assume that the population would have grown from 6 to 10 billion at that time? :dead:
Race doesn't determine your intelligence and ability to learn? Did you see the Oprah special about the two schools in chicago? Do you realize how poverty and racism go hand in hand?
Again, we see white/europeans spreading sickness and destruction to EVERY place they visit. And this is a COMMON factor. What I am focusing on is directly linked to science and the dna of white people. Is there something in white people that causes them to behave in this fashion?
No one is distorting it. You want RELIGION to take responsibility for what you claim NATURE designed us to do.
LMAO!
SIGH...
SEE ABOVE.
To you, the only "real world" is science, but everything I listed branches off into science at some point. Do you NOT realize that LAW crosses into SCIENCE when you enter the realm of criminology or forensics? Do you not realize that Psychology has to do with science because you need so many science courses to major in it because you are dealing with the human brain, chemicals in the body and dna?
So when you say, "I don't need to know anything about something that has nothing to do with the real world", yet post something that is DIRECTLY linked to psychology and psychiatry, you make yourself look like a fool. You make yourself appear to be an even BIGGER fool when you jump in, are told you know nothing about the subject and delete your post.
You read it right.
Yes.
In your instance, a friend is a person that will tolerate you.
If they tolerate you they are your friend. If they don't drop a toaster in teh bath tub while you are bathing they are your friend.
The thing is, you can't even tell us about your friends because everyone reading your posts no you are socially impotent and this is why you drown yourself in science. ThaG you have NO social skills, and in the past I tried to tell you that in order to succeed you are going to have to learn how to talk to people, and you ADMIT that you don't know how to talk to people and fly off the handle.
No, your views are straight up nazi, and if I actually start going into specific things you have posted that shed light on the subject, you might actually realize the truth of my assessment. No, a nazi is not the worst you can be. The worst a person can be is a snitch or atheist.
In some instances funded by catholics, but the core of nazi ideology is actually the occult. You should know this, because you adhere to nazism.
You are going in circles. You are claiming religion doesn't enforce birth control, yet when I show you many religions DO enforce birth control you ignore. You are placing the blame on RELIGION, yet you also say our sole purpose is to spread our genes as much as possible. If that is the case, why blame religion for doing what you yourself claim we are designed to do?
No one is distorting your words, and your statement doesn't make any sense.
I asked you a direct question not a rhetorical one, so you either answer it or you can't. If you can't answer it, you show you know nothing about the problem.
So you once again back peddle and change your story. Thanks
Can you please explain to us how imperialism and economic mishaps are tightly linked to religion?
Kill off ethnic people and people of darker skin tones.
So you're saying GREED has NOTHING to do with deforestation, pollution etc? So you're saying imperialism and capitalism have NOTHING to do with these things? ThaG what religious groups are spear heading a movement to cut down rain forests? Are people cutting down rain forests to offer quality housing at good rates, or are they cutting down rain forrests for their own benefit?
More twisted logic and misinterpreted facts? You didn't even tell us WHEN the ice was going to melt, so if you didn't tell us, why would anyone assume that the population would have grown from 6 to 10 billion at that time? :dead:
Race doesn't determine your intelligence and ability to learn? Did you see the Oprah special about the two schools in chicago? Do you realize how poverty and racism go hand in hand?
Again, we see white/europeans spreading sickness and destruction to EVERY place they visit. And this is a COMMON factor. What I am focusing on is directly linked to science and the dna of white people. Is there something in white people that causes them to behave in this fashion?
No one is distorting it. You want RELIGION to take responsibility for what you claim NATURE designed us to do.
LMAO!
Wow, you're obviously not as knowledgeable as you pass yourself off to be...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#Punctuated_equilibrium.27s_history
^You're actually the one who looks stupid, LMAO!. I wonder what you'll come up with to save face.(?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#Punctuated_equilibrium.27s_history
^You're actually the one who looks stupid, LMAO!. I wonder what you'll come up with to save face.(?)
