RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster

RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

vincentML -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/15/2017 7:27:47 AM)
quote: • No transitional fossils have been found; museums should be full of them. • Hoaxes, forgeries, and misrepresentations have been rampant. • Evolutionists can’t explain the origin of life. • Evolutionists can’t explain complexity or irreducible complexity. • Evolutionists can’t explain consciousness. Wow, I am relieved to learn that no hoaxes, forgeries, nor misrepresentations have ever been rampant among religions. Plenty of transitional fossils. neither can theists explain consciousness not the origin of like. Saying God created anything s no an explanation, it is just a statement. And yes, there is plenty of evidence for irreducible complexity, which is complex only in this moment of time. Evolution continues; creation has stopped. [On the Seventh day he rested]

WhoreMods -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/15/2017 7:53:00 AM)
I'm astonished that the "no transitional fossils" line is still being trotted out. If there are no transitional species shown in the fossil record WTF are archeoptrex and the other toothed birds that have been uncovered; the various feathered velociraptors; zeuglodon (aka basilosaurus) and earlier prototype whales; the precursor cockroaches from the carboniferous era (I forget the name of those); the early cephalopod fossils (one of which is cited as a prototype octopus and another as the common ancestor of all vampire squid) from even further back; attercopus (probably the ancestor of all modern spiders); the various jawless and barely even vertebral fish; eryops, icthystega and the other early amphibians (of which there are an absolute shitload); later amphibians in the process of transitioning to reptiles (some of which have proved to impossible to classify firmly as belonging to one group or the other); and the various transitional horse fossils which the creationists have been in denial about since the '50s?

bounty44 -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/15/2017 8:17:10 AM)
your post has been addressed earlier in multiple posts. quote: First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution... Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving... http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/ quote: Regarding biological macroevolution: • No transitional fossils have been found; museums should be full of them. • Hoaxes, forgeries, and misrepresentations have been rampant. http://www.allaboutcreation.org/catastrophism-versus-uniformitarianism-faq.htm quote: Archaeoraptor is a faked evolution example of a missing link Fake Dinosaur bird. Evolutionists are so quick to swallow fabrications such is the keenness to prove evolution. The hoax was most likely an honest mistake not like the Piltdown man fraud of 1908 which combined recent skeletal remains with various animal parts. The name given the find in July 1997 was Archaeoraptor Liaoningenesis Sloan after Christopher Sloan, senior assistant editor of National Geographic, who wrote, “With arms of a primitive bird and tail of a dinosaur, this creature found in Liaoning Province, China, is a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.” He confidently affirmed, “We can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we can say that humans are mammals” (“Feathers for T. Rex?” National Geographic, vol. 196, No. 5, November, 1999, pages 98-107. In the last article of the October, 2000, issue is the embarrassing admission that the Archaeoraptor fossil was a fraud, a combination of fossils. This all happened because of inadequate scientific consideration of evidence... Kevin Aulenback examined the fossil and wrote that it “is a composite specimen of at least 3 specimens.with a maximum.of five.separate specimens” (Vol. 198, No. 4, page 131). This should have been adequate evidence that it was a fraud; however, not until Xu Xing presented the results of his examination of the fossil was it finally admitted that it was a fraud. “`I am 100% sure..’ Xu wrote, `we have to admit that Archaeoraptor is a faked specimen'” (page 132).Finally it was conceded that “beyond all doubt that the tail belonged to the second fossil”... Horse evolution fraud 1.In 1841, the earliest so-called “horse” fossil was discovered in clay around London. The scientist who unearthed it, Richard Owen, found a complete skull that looked like a fox’s head with multiple back-teeth as in hoofed animals. He called it Hyracotherium. He saw no connection between it and the modern-day horse. 2.In 1874, another scientist, Kovalevsky, attempted to establish a link between this small fox-like creature, which he thought was 70 million years old, and the modern horse. 3.In 1879, an American fossil expert, O. C. Marsh, and famous evolutionist Thomas Huxley, collaborated for a public lecture which Huxley gave in New York. Marsh produced a schematic diagram which attempted to show the so-called development of the front and back feet, the legs, and the teeth of the various stages of the horse. He published his evolutionary diagram in the American Journal of Science in 1879, and it found its way into many other publications and textbooks. The scheme hasn’t changed. It shows a beautiful gradational sequence in “the evolution” of the horse, unbroken by any abrupt changes. This is what we see in school textbooks. The question is: “Is the scheme proposed by Huxley and Marsh true?” The simple answer is “No”. While it is a clever arrangement of the fossils on an evolutionary assumption, even leading evolutionists such as George Gaylord Simpson backed away from it. He said it was misleading. So what’s the difficulty for the horse with the theory of evolution? 1.If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don’t. In fact, bones of the supposed “earliest” horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils! O.C. Marsh commented on living horses with multiple toes, and said there were cases in the American Southwest where “both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size, thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct Protohippus”. In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says: “Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains.” Doesn’t this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one? 2.There is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen. Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress, and then used to support the assumption. This is circular reasoning, and does not qualify as objective science. 3.The theory of horse evolution has very serious genetic problems to overcome. How do we explain the variations in the numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae within the imagined evolutionary progression? For example, the number of ribs in the supposedly “intermediate” stages of the horse varies from 15 to 19 and then finally settles at 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also allegedly swings from six to eight and then returns to six again. 4.Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that modern horses vary enormously in size. The largest horse today is the Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at 17 inches (43 centimeters) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other. Two horses. Photo copyrighted. Supplied by Eden Communications. My research has left me troubled. Why do science textbooks continue to use the horse as a prime example of evolution, when the whole schema is demonstrably false? Why do they continue to teach our kids something that is not scientific? Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of the American Museum of Natural History, has said: “I admit that an awful lot of that (imaginary stories) has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable …”. The horse series is often presented as proof of evolution. The number of toes in foreleg and hind leg supposedly decreased as the horse evolved, and the size supposedly increased from a small doglike horse to a large modern horse. Yet three-toed horses have been found with one-toed horses, showing they lived at the same time. And there are tiny living Fallabella horses only 17 inches ( 43 centimeters) tall. https://evolutionisntscience.wordpress.com/evolution-frauds/ quote: Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said, "...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures." All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them. Breaks my heart. Archaeopteryx is now considered only a bird, not an intermediate fossil. The famous horse series that is still found in some textbooks and museums has been "discarded" and is considered a "phantom" and "illusion" because it is not proof of evolution. In fact, the first horse in the series is no longer thought to be a horse! And when a horse can't be counted on being a horse then we've got trouble, real trouble right here in River City. Concerning transitional fossils, world famous paleontologist Colin Patterson admitted that "there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Not one. http://www.cstnews.com/Code/FaithEvl.html want to rethink your "denial" charge?? you might as well be looking for big foot or the loch ness monster.

Made2Obey -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/15/2017 8:21:27 AM)
WM In Creationist-speak the term "transitional species" has only one meaning, it is code for "missing link," a term that has gone out of favor. In other words it only refers to the proto-hominid that was half man and half ape. They claim that lack of such a fossil is proof that evolution is an invalid theory. Of course they conveniently ignore finds such as this... Earliest Humans Or they simply dismiss the evidence as a hoax. They are incapable of seeing and understanding the truth of such evidence.

bounty44 -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/15/2017 8:32:20 AM)
no--the term "transitional species" refers to the necessary but mythical evidence of macro-evolution of all kinds of life, not just humans. however the term "missing link" is/was predominantly used for humans. creationists don't "simply dismiss evidence as a hoax"---they dismiss actual hoaxes. heres a response to your link: quote: Conclusion And so, there is little doubt that both Ardipithecus species are mere apes with only speculative features pointing to possible bipedal locomotion. One must remember that even if an ape is proven to have walked upright, it would not be evidence for human evolution from apes. Indeed, even apes today are seen to walk upright from time to time. For a specimen to be more acceptable as transitional, it must have been habitually bipedal. This has never been shown. Balter and Gibbons said: “The Orrorin and Ardipithecus teams assert that each other’s fossils could represent an ancestor of chimps or other apes, rather than one of our early human ancestors or cousins.”[11] Perhaps this is because both species are too fragmentary to conclusively state which, if any, our supposed ancestor is. Therefore, one should not hold to them as ‘evidence’ for human origins from apes. much more at the site: http://evolutiondismantled.com/ardipithecus

bounty44 -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/15/2017 8:41:15 AM)
more: quote: To place Ardi into human ancestry, as these authors insisted, creates more problems than it solves. For example, Ardipithecus' body structure shows no objective or undisputable transition toward uniquely human features. The authors themselves listed some of these differences: Humans have unique and interdependent sexual organs and reproductive biochemistry, unique feet, ankles and musculature, unique hip structure, unique teeth and crania, totally unique cognitive abilities, a distinct “gut structure,” upright walking, unique vocal apparatus, a “precipitous reduction of olfactory receptors,” mammary glands that retain a stable size, unadvertised female proceptivity, and an “unusually energy-thirsty brain.”3 Speculation and evolutionary guesswork, not scientific observations, are offered to bridge these gaps. Consistent with this is the broad use of speculative verbiage on the part of the authors. In the eleven papers in Science, the word “probably” appeared about 78 times, and “suggest,” “suggesting,” “suggestive,” or “suggests” were used 117 times, among other terms that are associated with an unsubstantiated story rather than a scientific description. If Ardi is presumed to be a human ancestor, then the century-long concept that has been taught as virtual fact—that humans evolved from a chimpanzee-like creature (based most recently on the strength of a supposed 99 percent agreement between their genome sequences)—must be discarded! This is because of Ardi’s unique features, which she does not share with African apes (or humans). In other words, arbitrarily placing Ardi at the foot of humanity’s evolutionary tree means that she negates the long-held concept of an African ape-like heritage. The chimpanzee, then, would have to have evolved on its own separate path. Ardi’s foot structure presents another problem for her assigned role in human ancestry. A lone Ardipithecus foot bone was described in 2001, and “it also shows a mosaic morphology that has features of both apes and A. afarensis [a.k.a. Lucy].”4 The other bones of her feet present no exception to the concept that Ardi possessed a mosaic of features, characteristics shared with other creatures and yet integrated into a uniquely created primate. She had hands for feet, and the long, curved bones of her fingers and toes clearly show that Ardi was adept at living in trees. The Ardipithecus foot has its big toe “thumb” projecting strikingly sideways, which is hardly human-like. Nor are its other foot bones like those of chimps and gorillas, which have specially flexible feet that enable them to climb vertical tree trunks. Ardi’s feet are like those of some of today’s monkeys, which have a stable platform from which to leap, along with a fully developed grasping structure. Though the authors insisted that this stable platform was adequate for walking, other experts already disagree with this assessment.5 Ardipithecus-as-ancestor promoters stated, “The foot of Ar. ramidus shows that none of these ape-like changes were present in the last common ancestor of African apes and humans.”6 However, Ar. ramidus only “shows” what was present in pre-human “hominids” if Ar. ramidus is presumed, a priori, to be an evolutionary antecedent of apes and humans. It looks instead like an extinct but unique animal, which the authors themselves hinted at when they stated that “the Ardipithecus foot was an odd mosaic.”6 Bipedality expert C. Owen Lovejoy wrote, “We can no longer rely on homologies with African apes for accounts of our origins and must turn instead to general evolutionary theory.”2 Thus, setting aside evolution-inspired ideology, there is no scientific reason—or observed evidence—to believe that Ardi was an ancestor of mankind. In fact, there is every reason to believe it is solely an extinct primate, as uniquely created as any monkey still alive today. http://www.icr.org/article/4975/

WhoreMods -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/15/2017 8:46:59 AM)
The faked archeoraptor fossil disproves the other fossil evidence (including a large number of verified feathered raptor fossils, and toothed birds) that birds evolved from therapods how, exactly? All it proves is that National Geographic are capable of messing up their fact checking: most paleontologists besides the idiot who'd gone to NG (rather than a peer reviewed journal) to get a taxonomical name for it that mixed his own name with the latin in print had already dismissed that as a fake. The horse argument was roundly trashed back in the '60s, but creationists are still trotting it out as evidence of paleontoligical "fraud" seemingly unaware of how mendacious, deceptive and untrustworthy doing so makes their research look. The "inconsistencies" that creationists are obsessed with there is down to them drawing on a rather simplified version of the horse's evolution from a child's biology textbook, rather than the more complex academic version that showed various offshoots and related species coexisting at the same time. Niles Eldredge is the main cheerleader in paleontology for the punctuated equilibrium theory, and so tends to talk down transitional fossils as he's an exponent of radical sudden changes in organisms rather than gradual ones. Colin Patterson thoroughly resents having had an out of context statement spun as him arguing against evolution, and hasn't been shy about saying so: quote: Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth ... a world-wide flood ... or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. ... I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context

vincentML -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/15/2017 9:05:38 AM)
@Nnanji superbly written. I am sorry I did not find this before but grateful to be able to respond now. Thank you for taking the time. I fear that I will not need so much time nor effort to expose the difference in our viewpoints now that I understand yours more thoroughly. And, please correct me where I go wrong. quote: To me, in my own thinking, I believe some day man will discover how to actually recognize and measure that energy that is the driving mechanism of the universe. To me, I am thankful that I was, am, able to perform that physical communion with the universe to see, small microscopic aspects of of the driving mechanism. We are talking past one another on at least two levels. Darwin was not speaking about the Evolution of the Universe. As far as he and even Einstein knew the universe was limited to only what was visible in telescopes. they thought our universe was our galaxy, or vise versa. The did see some fuzzy images which later would turn out to be other galaxies. But that discovery came along only with Hubble in the 1930s (?) What they saw in the night sky was all of "creation." Darwin specifically wrote only about the evolution of life, not of the Universe. And he did not speculate on the beginning of life on this planet. You ask about the driving force or energy of the universe. You recall, I'm sure the difference between exothermic and endothermic reactions. Some astronomers, maybe all, argue that the universe as it evolves is a process that gives off energy to its surroundings (surroundings is another issue that i would wish to avoid here) but as the universe expands its entropy is decreasing. Particles, stars, etc are further away from each other, and some postulate the universe will one day die a death of maximum entropy. Living things are quite the opposite. They absorb energy (they are endothermic) and they become more orderly as they grow and evolve (approaching minimum entropy until they start to die) Essentially, we are talking about two different and non-comparable systems. Life forms absorb energy as they grow. I think but I can't swear to it that living things absorb energy but then give off energy as they grow and die. In Darwin's Theory, as far as I can make of it, evolution has no driving mechanism, although living organisms do absorb and distribute energy. My own conclusion then is that the evolution of life as Darwin described it is rather passive, serendipitous, and fortuitous. To assign a driving mechanism to Darwin would be to engage in teleological thinking, which lies at the root of Judeo-Christian Dogma. Darwin proposes no particular thought to the purpose of life. His thesis is not teleological. Life is just happenstance. Here are a variety of organisms that are essentially packages of slightly different genomes, although all of a kind more or less, and here comes a change in their environment, slowly or catastrophically, or even by migration of part of the herd. In the new environment some variants are better suited to survival while others are not so lucky. In time the surviving members develop a separate genome. I don't know where the line is drawn. Humans and chimps have only a 2% genomic difference. Surely, the functions of the genes must count for something. But, I see no driving force as you might see in the explosion of petrol in a combustion engine. Do you see one there? I don't. It may be that the driving force may be some mystical bent for life to survive and colonize. I do not know of any argument for that. Thanks for the question, N, I enjoyed trying to answer it. quote: In fact, with all due respect to you, this is the sort of problem I see with your posts here. I don't know you well enough to suggest you have the same problems in other aspects of your life. But, I consistently see the beauty of mankind in this sort of thing and often fail to see that sort of beauty expressed by you when you post about some of the terrible things mankind has also done that torments this sort of beauty. But, I apologize, that's another discussion another day. However, since I did bring it up, I'll accept your chastisement on the issue. You are correct, N. While I find great beauty and pleasure in my life and while I will certainly miss the aesthetics, I am appalled at the disaster both mankind and nature have wrecked upon mankind, and I am especially furious when people (beginning with our school teachers) lie to us and we lie to each other when we proclaim what a wonderful life this is. 7.6 million children, age 5 or younger, die every year at the hands of natural catastrophe like disease and hurricanes. How do we not have compassion for those children and their parents? I suppose one might argue that our lack of empathy for those distant victims is a blessing, but when I see people write on here callously dismissing the ordeal of African slavery and their descendants, I feel a rage, an unbridled rage, especially when they blame the poorest of the poor for not being able to rise up from the gutter. Yeah, I live my life as if it is wonderful but I can't dismiss those who are unfortunate. ciao !

vincentML -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/15/2017 11:23:03 AM)
quote: but as the universe expands its entropy is decreasing. Particles, stars, etc are further away from each other, and some postulate the universe will one day die a death of maximum entropy. i think I screwed up what I was trying to say above, But . . . I am pretty sure of this . . . . . quote: In Darwin's Theory, as far as I can make of it, evolution has no driving mechanism, although living organisms do absorb and distribute energy. My own conclusion then is that the evolution of life as Darwin described it is rather passive, serendipitous, and fortuitous. To assign a driving mechanism to Darwin would be to engage in teleological thinking, which lies at the root of Judeo-Christian Dogma. Darwin proposes no particular thought to the purpose of life. His thesis is not teleological. Life is just happenstance.

vincentML -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/15/2017 4:34:16 PM)
ORIGINAL: vincentML Allow me to make this correction. quote: but as the universe expands its organization is decreasing. Particles, stars, galaxies, etc., are further away from each other, and some postulate the universe will one day die a death of maximum entropy. High disorder and low heat. quote: In Darwin's Theory, as much as I can make of it, evolution has no driving mechanism, although living organisms do absorb energy, they become highly organized. My own conclusion then is that the evolution of life as Darwin described it is rather passive, serendipitous, and fortuitous. To assign a driving mechanism to Darwin would be to engage in teleological thinking, which lies at the root of Judeo-Christian Dogma. Darwin proposes no particular reason for the purpose of life. His thesis is not teleological. Life is just happenstance. Entropy has two components: heat and disorder. As heat is lost and an object becomes disorganized its entropy rapidly increases. A stick of dynamite would be an obvious example. As it explodes it gives off a great deal of heat and becomes highly disorganized. High entropy, as Mr Trump might tweet, would be BAD. As the universe evolves its galaxies becomes highly disorganized, further apart, and energy is lost, entropy increases. As life evolves it becomes more organized and takes in energy, so has lower entropy. The evolution of living things and the evolution of the universe are opposite, contrasting events. The evolution of the universe may have a driving mechanism; the evolution of life may not have a driving mechanism. There is probably an easier way to say that . . . ..lol!

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/15/2017 6:08:37 PM)
Wow, are the God-Botherers still spitting up their stupidity?

Nnanji -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/15/2017 6:49:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick Wow, are the God-Botherers still spitting up their stupidity? You can always tell when a woman who has gotten through life taking advantage of men who want her cunt begins to lose desirability. That kid took its toll didn't it sweet. Pretty much lost the only real skill you had. Sorry dear.

Wayward5oul -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/15/2017 6:55:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick Wow, are the God-Botherers still spitting up their stupidity? You can always tell when a woman who has gotten through life taking advantage of men who want her cunt begins to lose desirability. That kid took its toll didn't it sweet. Pretty much lost the only real skill you had. Sorry dear. That is an extremely low blow there, Nnanji. Truly inhumane.

Nnanji -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/15/2017 7:00:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick Wow, are the God-Botherers still spitting up their stupidity? You can always tell when a woman who has gotten through life taking advantage of men who want her cunt begins to lose desirability. That kid took its toll didn't it sweet. Pretty much lost the only real skill you had. Sorry dear. That is an extremely low blow there, Nnanji. Truly inhumane. Actually what is the low blow is a cock tease taking advantage of drunk men all her life and believing it makes her special.

Wayward5oul -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/15/2017 7:06:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick Wow, are the God-Botherers still spitting up their stupidity? You can always tell when a woman who has gotten through life taking advantage of men who want her cunt begins to lose desirability. That kid took its toll didn't it sweet. Pretty much lost the only real skill you had. Sorry dear. That is an extremely low blow there, Nnanji. Truly inhumane. Actually what is the low blow is a cock tease taking advantage of drunk men all her life and believing it makes her special. Characterize her any way you wish. Doesn't nullify the comments you just made regarding her and the baby girl she lost.

Nnanji -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/15/2017 7:12:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick Wow, are the God-Botherers still spitting up their stupidity? You can always tell when a woman who has gotten through life taking advantage of men who want her cunt begins to lose desirability. That kid took its toll didn't it sweet. Pretty much lost the only real skill you had. Sorry dear. That is an extremely low blow there, Nnanji. Truly inhumane. Actually what is the low blow is a cock tease taking advantage of drunk men all her life and believing it makes her special. Characterize her any way you wish. Doesn't nullify the comments you just made regarding her and the baby girl she lost. Didn't know she lost the child but that doesn't make it so she can be a bitch. Let her go take it out on her drunks. Her emotions are not my concern. If she wants to play here, she'll have to reap what she sows.

Wayward5oul -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/15/2017 7:23:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick Wow, are the God-Botherers still spitting up their stupidity? You can always tell when a woman who has gotten through life taking advantage of men who want her cunt begins to lose desirability. That kid took its toll didn't it sweet. Pretty much lost the only real skill you had. Sorry dear. That is an extremely low blow there, Nnanji. Truly inhumane. Actually what is the low blow is a cock tease taking advantage of drunk men all her life and believing it makes her special. Characterize her any way you wish. Doesn't nullify the comments you just made regarding her and the baby girl she lost. Didn't know she lost the child but that doesn't make it so she can be a bitch. Let her go take it out on her drunks. Her emotions are not my concern. If she wants to play here, she'll have to reap what she sows. If you were paying attention to her posts in this thread, and it seems like you were for you to comment on them, then you would know. And how is being a bar waitress taking advantage of drunks? Adult men choosing to go somewhere and spend their money how they please is an indication oj her character? Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Sad.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/15/2017 10:10:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick Wow, are the God-Botherers still spitting up their stupidity? You can always tell when a woman who has gotten through life taking advantage of men who want her cunt begins to lose desirability. That kid took its toll didn't it sweet. Pretty much lost the only real skill you had. Sorry dear. That is an extremely low blow there, Nnanji. Truly inhumane. It's alright, I appreciate Nnanji giving everybody such a wonderful example of what Christian "values" actually are.

vincentML -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/16/2017 5:38:14 AM)
ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Wow, are the God-Botherers still spitting up their stupidity? I am a "god-botherer?" I am surprised to learn I had such power. Was it my flared cape, hooded mask, and powerful hero boots that gave me away? Spitting up stupidity? You must be a font of wisdom then. Please enlighten me. What did I get wrong?

Nnanji -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/16/2017 7:02:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick Wow, are the God-Botherers still spitting up their stupidity? You can always tell when a woman who has gotten through life taking advantage of men who want her cunt begins to lose desirability. That kid took its toll didn't it sweet. Pretty much lost the only real skill you had. Sorry dear. That is an extremely low blow there, Nnanji. Truly inhumane. It's alright, I appreciate Nnanji giving everybody such a wonderful example of what Christian "values" actually are. Who said I was Christian? Are you now, after being a little bitch going to do a poor me? How pathetic.

Page: << < prev 38 39 [40] 41 42 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125