Prove God Exists and Win $10,000.00!

uscitizen said:
Yep fear drives current politics in America too. A result of the republicans using fear mongering as a political tool.
Why the Wright wingnuts and religions were aligned for a while there. Both fear driven entities.
Click to expand...

The fear mongering is manifested by the libs creating fear of the Patriot Act.....
and of course voting for it also...

and hate spewing bigots like Wright (and those that follow or believe him) are to be feared in the real sense...
 
bravo said:
The fear mongering is manifested by the libs creating fear of the Patriot Act.....
and of course voting for it also...

and hate spewing bigots like Wright (and those that follow or believe him) are to be feared in the real sense...
Click to expand...

You mean like all thirteen or fourteen of them? :rolleyes:
 
the dems and most everyone else was afraid of being call traitor, unamerican, terrorist supporter. remember you are either with us or against us ?

I did not bow down but most did.
 
"Among its provisions, the Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial and other records;"

You honestly do not see a problem with that? There are law enforcement agencies searching records of public libraries to see who checked out what books. That sounds more like Nazi Germany than the United States of America.


"eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States"

Because we all know how honest and forthright the CIA has always been.



"expands the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities"

But not limited to foreign individuals and entities. And does the financial market need more regulations? Funny that there seems to be less and less interest in preventing another Enron disastor, but lets watch for terrorists.



I am done quoting your patriot act, but here is another quote you might read and think on:

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
 
uscitizen said:
the dems and most everyone else was afraid of being call traitor, unamerican, terrorist supporter. remember you are either with us or against us ?

I did not bow down but most did.
Click to expand...

Well, don't I just weep for those poor "scairrrrdy-catttttsss"

and its a wonder idiots keep electing them thar pussies....
 
Solitary said:
"Among its provisions, the Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial and other records;"

You honestly do not see a problem with that? There are law enforcement agencies searching records of public libraries to see who checked out what books. That sounds more like Nazi Germany than the United States of America.


"eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States"

Because we all know how honest and forthright the CIA has always been.



"expands the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities"

But not limited to foreign individuals and entities. And does the financial market need more regulations? Funny that there seems to be less and less interest in preventing another Enron disastor, but lets watch for terrorists.



I am done quoting your patriot act, but here is another quote you might read and think on:

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
Click to expand...

Your bullshit quotes from a hundred years ago, about times and issues that have no relevance to today is entertaining but thats about all....
Its not Rome, its not 1776 or 1860....times have changed....enemys have changed...weapons have changed....and fanatics have changed.....methods of war have changed...the dangers have changed....and the NEEDED protections have changed.....so try to keep up....
 
I have kept up. I have kept up with the constant erosion of our freedoms.

Is it really worth losing your freedoms over? Do you think that the patriot act really makes you safer to any real degree?

You sound as though our choices are give up freedoms or die at the hands of terrorists?
 
bravo said:
Well clown...get used to it....

The USA PATRIOT Act, commonly known as the 'Patriot' act, is an Act of Congress that United States President George W. Bush signed into law on October 26, 2001. The acronym stands for " Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" (Public Law Pub.L. 107-56).

The act expands the authority of US law enforcement agencies for the stated purpose of fighting terrorism in the United States and abroad. Among its provisions, the Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expands the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA Patriot Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.

The Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Click to expand...

Yes, both Republicans and Democrats are retarded jackasses whose collective anii your lips are wrapped around.

You as usual, have no point because, as per usual, you're a dumbass puppet who needs a pundit to tell him how to think. Good day, mongoloid idiot.
 
There seems to be a lot of name-calling in the threads around here. I guess I am unaccustomed to such rude behavior in debates.

I'll have to practice calling people retards, morons and assmuncher.

Being the polite southerner I am.......well.....nevermind. I'm sure I'll get the hang of it soon enough.


:gives:
 
Took me a while too but you get used to it.

Most of these people just aren't worth a thought out response. You'll figure out which ones on your own.
 
I am beginning to see that already.

I know that the arguing with the idiots is like shooting fish in a barrel, but it can be entertaining too.





:pke:
 
uscitizen said:
LOL Fear of the unexplainable fuels religions and always has.

We now understand the evil spirits do not cause disease, but we still do not understand the majority of the scerets of the universe. Like how 1/3 can exist :shock:
Click to expand...

Well, aside from Beefy acting retarded and hijacking the thread, I see I have reduced you pinheads to the typical petty insults and put downs. So, I guess we are finished with the debate and I win?

The question for Onceler is still out there... what "Science" have you read that supports cross-species evolution? All you responded with was... "See what I mean, you are dumb!" I asked you a direct question and got an insult, not an answer. This is often the case here, because you don't have an answer, you can't prove me wrong because I am stubborn and don't give in. So, you eventually get frustrated that I am not buying your misconceptions and I'm calling you on your outright lies, and then the insults begin.

For the record, 1/3 exists, I never stated otherwise. 1/3 is a mathematical division problem, it is one divided by three, and the result is still the same today as it was several years ago when I made that point you couldn't refute. Math never changes, we know for certain it doesn't evolve. Let me check my trusty calculator again... 1... divide by... 3... equals... YEP, still equals .33333E which means there is a remainder when you divide 1 by 3. That is all I ever stated, and it is still true, deal with it.

I have also given irrefutable evidence to support a theory of intelligent design. Rooted and based in Science, not Religion. So, you guys keep practicing your insult skills, cause you really do suck at actual debate. Meanwhile, I am going to sit back and wait for someone to say something worthy of responding.... just wanted you to know, so you wouldn't be thinking you've run me off or anything like that.
 
Last edited:
No, you said 1/3 cannot exist. You're lying now and I'd prove it if I wasn't too lazy to do it. Everyone remembers anyway. It was a classic thread.

Ever find that missing dollar?
 
Dixie said:
Well, aside from Beefy acting retarded and hijacking the thread, I see I have reduced you pinheads to the typical petty insults and put downs. So, I guess we are finished with the debate and I win?

The question for Onceler is still out there... what "Science" have you read that supports cross-species evolution? All you responded with was... "See what I mean, you are dumb!" I asked you a direct question and got an insult, not an answer. This is often the case here, because you don't have an answer, you can't prove me wrong because I am stubborn and don't give in. So, you eventually get frustrated that I am not buying your misconceptions and I'm calling you on your outright lies, and then the insults begin.

For the record, 1/3 exists, I never stated otherwise. 1/3 is a mathematical division problem, it is one divided by three, and the result is still the same today as it was several years ago when I made that point you couldn't refute. Math never changes, we know for certain it doesn't evolve. Let me check my trusty calculator again... 1... divide by... 3... equals... YEP, still equals .33333E which means there is a remainder when you divide 1 by 3. That is all I ever stated, and it is still true, deal with it.

I have also given irrefutable evidence to support a theory of intelligent design. Rooted and based in Science, not Religion. So, you guys keep practicing your insult skills, cause you really do suck at actual debate. Meanwhile, I am going to sit back and wait for someone to say something worthy of responding.... just wanted you to know, so you wouldn't be thinking you've run me off or anything like that.
Click to expand...

Does "plants can't exist without the seasons" constitute this irrefutable evidence?

And if I was you, I wouldn't even try to defend your embarrassing behavior about the 1/3 thing.
 
I guess I will have to go back and reread the thread to see where the irrefutable evidence for your idea that plants cannot live without season, the tides allow all sea life to live, and that the moon acts like a gyroscope to keep the earth......well, you get the idea.


As for our discussion of eyes, you might read this:

"In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch."

This comes from the website:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html




I certainly don't see how you think you won the debate. Unless you ignore the facts, which would also be a good way to accept intelligent design.

:cof1:
 
Never let facts get in the way of faith. That is why we wound up in this republican led mess we are in.
But bush wears jeans :woot:
 
Hey Dixie, how about more info on the volution of the eye?

This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).


photosensitive cell
aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
pigment cells forming a small depression
pigment cells forming a deeper depression
the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.

Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top