Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 13 of 22 FirstFirst ... 89101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 214

Thread: Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

  1. -121
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,748
    vCash:
    3900
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by phins_4_ever View Post
    That's why I gave up on that discussion. You can't have a debate with someone who is narrow minded, dismisses all other facts and holds on to a book written by many people over several hundred years (making it hear-say at best).

    I doubt that it is best for people like Statler to be kept in check by the bible. Remember the bible condones rape, murder and incest. The bible is a breeding ground for immorality and abuse. It let's you sin all your life without taking responsibility as long as you confess and accept Jesus as your savior. People as narrow minded as Statler run around plenty. Not all of them are as famous as Koresh or your friendly neighborhood priest or pastor or that televangelist dude but plenty are running around.
    He has a level of delusion that could definitely be medicated. At the very least, someone like him would be receiving weekly, and probably even twice a week, therapy sessions. Seriously, this guy is dangerous in any number of ways...

    If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
    maybe you would never have to hurt again...

    Quote Quote  

  2. -122
    PHINATIC13's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    5,443
    vCash:
    1272
    Loc:
    Los Angeles,CA
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post

    Of course I refuse to acknowledge your attempts because they prove nothing. You have three ways in which you can refute my syllogism, and you have yet to even try any one of the three.

    1. Prove the syllogismís form is invalid. (Considering the indirect syllogism was first used by Kant and has been used by logicians for centuries I donít think youíre going to get anywhere with this approach.)
    2. Demonstrate that the God of scripture actually doesnít make sense of the preconditions of intelligibility.
    3. Demonstrate that there is an alternative explanation other than the God of scripture that can make sense of the preconditions of intelligibility.

    Those are your only three options, saying you donít like the syllogism, saying itís not demonstrable because nobody can prove God exists (which just oozes circularity), or claiming it is merely my opinion do nothing to refute the syllogism. If you canít refute the syllogism then you have no rational basis for denying its conclusion.









    ....my friend....I believe you have an interesting theory.....nothing more...
    thanks for the sig like2god





    Quote Quote  

  3. -123
    JackFinfan's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2010
    Posts:
    466
    vCash:
    2432
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by tylerdolphin View Post
    Your syllogism is:


    Ill give two different argument as to why this syllogism is either not valid or not relevant.

    First of all, if God is needed for knowledge to be possible, how can you know there is knowledge when theres no proof of God? You argument is circular. In order to make knowledge possible, you grant that God is real. But then to make God real, you have to appeal back to the fact that we have have knowledge. Your P1 states that if knowledge is possible, God exists. You now have to show that knowledge is possible. You cant do that without using a God that your P1 already states is proven through knowledge. Can you not see how circular that is?

    Secondly, let me grant you that your syllogism is true and perfectly valid. God is proven for the purposes of this point. Now prove to me that its the Christian God I should follow and not any of the other thousands of options for God.

    I find fault right from the start. Why does God have to exist if knowledge is possible? Forget proving God exists; you need to prove P1 first.


    He thinks Christianity is the only true religion, because that's what he believes in. We already know that Waldorf is ignorant towards other religions. Rob has taken him to school several times in this religion forum when discussing non-Christian beliefs.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -124
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,259
    vCash:
    1246
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Your syllogism makes claims and assumptions you nor me can prove or disprove. Hence your syllogism is useless. Just because you say God is needed for knowledge doesnt make it so. You have to demonstrate that to be true.


    You see, this is exactly what I was talking about; this sort of thing does nothing to refute the syllogism because it’s just factually incorrect. As I pointed out in my previous post, premise 1 of the syllogism is demonstrated by establishing two points, first that the God of scripture can in fact account for the preconditions of intelligibility and secondly that any proposed alternative to the God of scripture cannot account for any or all of the preconditions. That does in fact demonstrate the first premise to be true, which establishes the syllogism as sound. So unless you can explain how either God cannot account for the preconditions or give me a way in which you can account for them by not using the God of scripture you’re pretty much stuck because denying the conclusion of the syllogism for any other reason is simply irrational.

    So I see you are back from your new earth indoctrination course. It looks like I was wrong about you just joking around. Now I realize you are certifiable insane.


    So whenever you’re backed into a corner you just resort to these sorts of irrational personal attacks? Well by all means continue because they do nothing to refute my position or establish yours so they make things rather easy for me.


    Previous posters have provided links to articles from Christians who support carbon dating methods but you just conveniently ignore them.


    Apparently you’re the one who actually ignored them because they were not even talking about carbon dating (which cannot be used to date the earth) but rather radiometric dating. Either way, the fact that other Christians buy into these dating methods does nothing to establish that they work. I have asked for proof that they even work to begin with and I am still waiting for that proof.


    To have to spell it out that no one have ever found fossils of dinasours and man at the same layer of rock, notice I said layer, not place, which would provethat they coexisted.


    You don’t have to spell anything out, I already addressed this issue. Your point is guilty of begging the question because it assumes that the stratified layers of sediment are a long record of the earth’s history which is something only your side of the aisle believes. Creationists believe that a great deal of those layers were laid down very quickly during the flood which would mean that I wouldn’t expect to find humans and dinosaurs in the same layer because humans would have escaped the rising flood waters until the very last moment thus completely avoiding fossilization at all. This of course is completely consistent with the fossil record which appears to be more of a record of mobility and intelligence than actually developmental history. Be that as it may, even given your side’s view of the fossil record we don’t have to find two organisms in the same fossil layer in order to believe they coexisted (i.e. we know the Coelacanth and the Whale have coexisted for a very long time and yet they never appear in the same layer in the fossil record).

    You can't have a rational conversation with the insane and you sir definitely fall into that category with your completely insane posts.


    More personal attacks I see, you’re really falling apart at the seams aren’t you? Anyways, my side of the discussion is certainly not the side that is short on rationality considering I have always backed up my position with logical arguments and facts and you’re the one who seems to believe the earth is billions of years old simply because of one dating method that you cannot establish even works; how is that rational at all? You talk a good game, I’ll concede you that point.

    It goes to show how morally limited your ilk really are when you need a book to tell you what's right and wrong when most people have a natural born ability to know right from wrong.


    If this is really the case then how come you all seem to really struggle at providing a defensible definition of what morality even is? In fact, none of you even seem to be on the same page when it comes to defining morality which just goes to show it’s all completely arbitrary when you take God out of the equation and therefore meaningless. Take for example the definition of morality you just provided above, it commits the is/ought fallacy because you can’t reason from the way things are to the way things ought to be so even your definition of morality is completely irrational.


    Actually, thinking about it maybe it is better to have the bible to keep people like you in check. Otherwise, your kind would be probably out raping and killing.


    So two sentences after you claimed that man has a natural inclination against raping and killing you then assert that without the Bible all of the one billion plus Jews and Christians in the world become rapists and murderers? Were they not born with the same inclination you just said humans had? You have got to be one of the most inconsistent people I have ever had these discussions with and that’s really saying something.

    Ill give two different argument as to why this syllogism is either not valid or not relevant.


    Ok, sweet, now we’re getting somewhere : - )

    First of all, if God is needed for knowledge to be possible, how can you know there is knowledge when theres no proof of God? You argument is circular. In order to make knowledge possible, you grant that God is real. But then to make God real, you have to appeal back to the fact that we have have knowledge. Your P1 states that if knowledge is possible, God exists. You now have to show that knowledge is possible. You cant do that without using a God that your P1 already states is proven through knowledge. Can you not see how circular that is?


    I think you are confusing circular with indirect, yes the syllogism is indirect; no it is not circular because the conclusion is not a restatement of the premises. Additionally, I don’t use God’s existence in order to demonstrate that knowledge is possible (which would be circular since I used the possibility of knowledge to establish God), I establish the fact knowledge is possible through different means and then use that fact to establish God’s existence. The indirect syllogism was first developed by Immanuel Kant in order to refute empiricism, he wanted to prove that there are certain truths that must be presupposed to be true before any learning could take place by empirical means, so he used the same syllogism to prove that laws of logic exist, that uniformity in nature exists (making induction possible), that our senses are reliable and so on. Kant was on the right track he just didn’t take it quite far enough, what this syllogism establishes is that there is even one more truth above all of those things, and that is God’s existence because it accounts for the existence of all of Kant’s truths and yet needs no other truth in order to account for His existence because He is non-contingent and eternal.

    Let’s examine your charge of circularity a bit closer by looking at the exact same syllogism, just used to prove another truth.

    If thinking is possible, my mind exists
    Thinking is possible
    Therefore, my mind exists.

    The mind existing is a prerequisite to thinking (established exactly the same way I established God being a prerequisite for knowledge) and so therefore if I am thinking I can use that fact to prove I have a mind. This syllogism like mine above is valid in form and not circular because it affirms the antecedent (thinking) rather than affirming the consequent (my mind existing).

    Secondly, let me grant you that your syllogism is true and perfectly valid. God is proven for the purposes of this point. Now prove to me that its the Christian God I should follow and not any of the other thousands of options for God.


    That’s simply because the syllogism proves the Christian God exists and not any other God because in order to account for the preconditions of knowledge God must possess very specific qualities. Only the Christian God possesses these qualities.

    I’ll give you just one quick example, the uniformity of nature. In a Christian universe we can have complete confidence that trials under identical conditions will yield identical results because God has promised us that He will uphold His creation in a uniform and predictable manner (Genesis 8). This confidence allows us to use induction which makes science possible. No other proposed concept of God has made such a promise to mankind and no other concept of God is even providentially controlling of how the universe functions (Allah is an impersonal God who does not interact with man in such a way, the Hindu concept of god is not distinct from nature but rather a part of it and so on). The Christian God is completely unique in this regard and yet this quality is necessary for us to even practice scientific investigation. Knowledge would be impossible in a world where there was no uniformity in nature because you couldn’t make predictions about future events or use past experiences to gain knowledge.


    That's why I gave up on that discussion. You can't have a debate with someone who is narrow minded, dismisses all other facts and holds on to a book written by many people over several hundred years (making it hear-say at best).


    You gave up because you were getting destroyed, it was obvious. You’re just hopelessly inconsistent, and it’s impossible to win a debate if you’re not consistent in your view of reality. You even provided a classic example in this very post, you claimed you couldn’t debate with me because I am “narrow-minded”, and yet you are the one who called me crazy and delusional for believing something different than you do. You see? You’re just not consistent in what you believe and say.

    I doubt that it is best for people like Statler to be kept in check by the bible. Remember the bible condones rape, murder and incest.


    I already refuted the rape point, the Ten Commandments forbid murder and incest was forbidden in Leviticus, you just can’t win can you? Can you provide me with a reason as to why incest would be wrong under your atheistic view of morality? I bet you can’t, and that is why you’ll just ignore this question.

    Very true. It's just amazing there are people out here that are completely wacko with these beliefs.


    Wait, I thought I was the one who was supposed to be narrow-minded! You guys are too funny. “Statler, you’re so narrow minded! People like you are crazy, delusional, immoral, dangerous and shouldn’t be allowed to hold the beliefs you hold!” :-P

    He has a level of delusion that could definitely be medicated. At the very least, someone like him would be receiving weekly, and probably even twice a week, therapy sessions. Seriously, this guy is dangerous in any number of ways...


    I hope you were gone because you were reading a few peer-reviewed journals now that you know what they look like thanks to moi. So rather than trying to refute any of my points you just want to call me delusional and crazy and state that I need mental help? Is being rational really a mental disorder these days? That’s all I have done, provided actual reasons for believing what I believe, which is infinitely more than what I have seen from any of you.
    I know what this tactic is, it’s a rescue mechanism and a form of self-nurturing; when you can’t attack the argument you naturally will resort to attacking the arguer. It’s a sign of weakness, and I welcome it every time I see it because it only strengthens my position. If your position was even remotely strong you’d be able to defend it without resorting to personal attacks, and yet you cannot.

    ....my friend....I believe you have an interesting theory.....nothing more...


    Do you have a reason for believing that? You certainly didn’t give one.

    I find fault right from the start. Why does God have to exist if knowledge is possible? Forget proving God exists; you need to prove P1 first.


    I already have ten times at least by now; God has to exist if knowledge is possible because no other view of reality can makes sense of the preconditions necessary for knowledge. If no other view of reality can account for the preconditions then the one view of reality that actually can account for them must exist in order for the preconditions to exist, therefore God must exist in order for knowledge to be possible. Done.


    He thinks Christianity is the only true religion, because that's what he believes in.


    Nope, Christianity is true because it has to be true in order for us to know or prove anything at all.

    We already know that Waldorf is ignorant towards other religions. Rob has taken him to school several times in this religion forum when discussing non-Christian beliefs.


    The very notion that Rob could take anyone “to school” is absurd, all he did was post outdated youtube videos on Hinduism that completely re-affirmed my statement that Hindus believe all distinctions are illusory. This of course is why he never responded when I pointed out how the Hindu concept of god cannot account for knowledge, he knew I was right. You really can try and spin any overwhelming defeat into a victory can’t you? :- ) Someone needs to hire you as a PR person for their political campaign.
    Total Depravity
    Unconditional Election
    Limited Atonement
    Irresistible Grace
    Perseverance of the Saints
    Quote Quote  

  5. -125
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,259
    vCash:
    1246
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    He has a level of delusion that could definitely be medicated. At the very least, someone like him would be receiving weekly, and probably even twice a week, therapy sessions. Seriously, this guy is dangerous in any number of ways...


    I wanted to add one more thing since now apparently you think you’re a Psychiatrist rather than just a Psychologist, in order for me to actually be “delusional” I’d have to adhere to beliefs that are demonstrably false, so could you please point to or provide me with demonstration that anything I believe is indeed false? If you cannot, then your claims that I am delusional are both meaningless and even dishonest (which is disappointing since you claim to be a professor and therefore should be held to a higher degree of intellectual integrity and honesty). If you do not respond I will assume you yet again cannot support your position.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -126
    tylerdolphin's Avatar
    More Smug than Birthday Dog

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2005
    Posts:
    12,286
    vCash:
    3832
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Cam Wake 91
    So what are these preconditions to intelligibility you keep talking about?

    And how can you assume that knowledge is possible? You say you know its possible and that proves God. That makes no sense. If knowledge is verifiable without you already establishing that God is true, then God isnt necessary.




    Quote Quote  

  7. -127
    JackFinfan's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2010
    Posts:
    466
    vCash:
    2432
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post

    I wanted to add one more thing since now apparently you think you’re a Psychiatrist rather than just a Psychologist, in order for me to actually be “delusional” I’d have to adhere to beliefs that are demonstrably false, so could you please point to or provide me with demonstration that anything I believe is indeed false? If you cannot, then your claims that I am delusional are both meaningless and even dishonest (which is disappointing since you claim to be a professor and therefore should be held to a higher degree of intellectual integrity and honesty). If you do not respond I will assume you yet again cannot support your position.
    Providing a delusional person an example of them being delusional is like trying to tell Helen Keller she's deaf and blind by speaking to her while using sign language. Want an example of you being delusional, just re-read any of these threads that you've posted in. Even if Locke provided the perfect example of you being delusional, you wouldn't accept it...because you're delusional. lol I know you don't think psychology is a science, but let me tell you, you're a great case study for various self defense mechanisms. (main 2 being psychotic denial, delusional projection)
    Quote Quote  

  8. -128
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,748
    vCash:
    3900
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by JackFinfan View Post
    Providing a delusional person an example of them being delusional is like trying to tell Helen Keller she's deaf and blind by speaking to her while using sign language. Want an example of you being delusional, just re-read any of these threads that you've posted in. Even if Locke provided the perfect example of you being delusional, you wouldn't accept it...because you're delusional. lol I know you don't think psychology is a science, but let me tell you, you're a great case study for various self defense mechanisms. (main 2 being psychotic denial, delusional projection)
    The first rule for treating someone with delusions or hallucinations, whether they be auditory or visual, is you don't tell them they are delusional. You work in a circular fashion and at their pace, until they realize themselves that what they are experiencing isn't real or is distorted. You're also absolutely right though, he wants examples, yet has been given dozens in this thread alone. He refuses to acknowledge them. My time is better spent doing other things. They have a new saison at the brewery down the street. That sounds like a much better use of my time then trying to reason with a crazy person...
    Quote Quote  

  9. -129
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,259
    vCash:
    1246
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    So what are these preconditions to intelligibility you keep talking about?


    1. Laws of Logic
    2. The uniformity of nature, namely that future trials or experiences will have identical results as past trials under identical conditions.
    3. The reliability of one’s own senses
    4. The reliability of one’s own memory
    5. Laws of behavior or morality
    6. The concepts of “types” and “classes” of events and objects

    All of those must be true in order for knowledge to be possible, and yet in a purely natural universe it makes no sense to assume any of them are indeed true.

    And how can you assume that knowledge is possible? You say you know its possible and that proves God. That makes no sense. If knowledge is verifiable without you already establishing that God is true, then God isnt necessary.


    You’re missing the distinction between something being possible and the preconditions necessary for that thing to be possible, I can prove the former before I prove the latter. Air is necessary for us to breathe, however a person doesn’t have to believe air exists in order to breathe. So I can prove that breathing is possible first and then use that to prove that air must therefore also exist. I can prove that knowledge is possible, and then use that proof to then prove that all the conditions that make knowledge possible must therefore also exist. We know that knowledge is possible because any argument to the contrary refutes itself, namely that any argument that argues against the possibility of knowledge must assume knowledge is possible beforehand. So it’s proof by negation again, I don’t have to prove “A” if I can prove the very concept of “not A” is impossible because it is self-refuted.

    Providing a delusional person an example of them being delusional is like trying to tell Helen Keller she's deaf and blind by speaking to her while using sign language.


    Telling someone you can’t prove they are delusional because they are delusional is circular reasoning, so I guess all you did was prove that you are irrational rather than I am delusional. Nice.

    Want an example of you being delusional,


    Wait, so now you are going to try and prove to me that I am delusional even though you just said it cannot be done? I see you have not fixed your problem of inconsistency.

    just re-read any of these threads that you've posted in. Even if Locke provided the perfect example of you being delusional, you wouldn't accept it...because you're delusional. lol


    So you can’t provide an example and your only basis for believing I am delusional is completely circular and could just as easily be used to prove that you are in fact delusional? Nice. Ok, well here goes, you are delusional, just look at all of your posts throughout this thread, I know you will not accept it but that’s just because you are delusional and I cannot prove to you that you are delusional because you are delusional. Wow, that was easy! Well maybe you should seek psychiatric help since we have now established the fact that you are indeed the one who is delusional even given your own standards. Lol.

    I know you don't think psychology is a science, but let me tell you, you're a great case study for various self defense mechanisms. (main 2 being psychotic denial, delusional projection)


    Did you miss it? I just proved you are actually the one who is delusional given your standard above, so maybe it is you who are suffering from projection? I know psychology is not a science, and given your irrational reasons for believing I am delusional apparently it’s not even a very rational area of study.

    The first rule for treating someone with delusions or hallucinations, whether they be auditory or visual, is you don't tell them they are delusional.


    Oh snap! Looks like you can’t even follow your own rules since you already tried to tell me I was delusional, you’re so small time.


    You work in a circular fashion and at their pace, until they realize themselves that what they are experiencing isn't real or is distorted.


    “Working in a circular fashion” is code for “base your analysis on circular reasoning”, this is why you all will never be considered a science, your professional “analysis” is completely based on fallacious invalid reasoning.


    You're also absolutely right though, he wants examples, yet has been given dozens in this thread alone.


    Yet you can’t even point to one? Convenient.

    He refuses to acknowledge them.


    You refuse to point them out because they are fictional.

    My time is better spent doing other things.


    This of course obviously doesn’t include reading peer-reviewed journal articles.


    They have a new saison at the brewery down the street. That sounds like a much better use of my time then trying to reason with a crazy person...


    So you can’t back up your claim that I am indeed crazy with any specific examples? I didn’t think so! Well I guess I can just call you crazy then since there are no standards of behavior around here. There is no way you are actually a professor, you’re nothing more than a hack masquerading as something he’s not.

    You’re actually the one who is delusional, prove me wrong :-P
    Quote Quote  

  10. -130
    JackFinfan's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2010
    Posts:
    466
    vCash:
    2432
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post

    1. Laws of Logic
    2. The uniformity of nature, namely that future trials or experiences will have identical results as past trials under identical conditions.
    3. The reliability of one’s own senses
    4. The reliability of one’s own memory
    5. Laws of behavior or morality
    6. The concepts of “types” and “classes” of events and objects

    All of those must be true in order for knowledge to be possible, and yet in a purely natural universe it makes no sense to assume any of them are indeed true.



    You’re missing the distinction between something being possible and the preconditions necessary for that thing to be possible, I can prove the former before I prove the latter. Air is necessary for us to breathe, however a person doesn’t have to believe air exists in order to breathe. So I can prove that breathing is possible first and then use that to prove that air must therefore also exist. I can prove that knowledge is possible, and then use that proof to then prove that all the conditions that make knowledge possible must therefore also exist. We know that knowledge is possible because any argument to the contrary refutes itself, namely that any argument that argues against the possibility of knowledge must assume knowledge is possible beforehand. So it’s proof by negation again, I don’t have to prove “A” if I can prove the very concept of “not A” is impossible because it is self-refuted.



    Telling someone you can’t prove they are delusional because they are delusional is circular reasoning, so I guess all you did was prove that you are irrational rather than I am delusional. Nice.



    Wait, so now you are going to try and prove to me that I am delusional even though you just said it cannot be done? I see you have not fixed your problem of inconsistency.



    So you can’t provide an example and your only basis for believing I am delusional is completely circular and could just as easily be used to prove that you are in fact delusional? Nice. Ok, well here goes, you are delusional, just look at all of your posts throughout this thread, I know you will not accept it but that’s just because you are delusional and I cannot prove to you that you are delusional because you are delusional. Wow, that was easy! Well maybe you should seek psychiatric help since we have now established the fact that you are indeed the one who is delusional even given your own standards. Lol.



    Did you miss it? I just proved you are actually the one who is delusional given your standard above, so maybe it is you who are suffering from projection? I know psychology is not a science, and given your irrational reasons for believing I am delusional apparently it’s not even a very rational area of study.



    Oh snap! Looks like you can’t even follow your own rules since you already tried to tell me I was delusional, you’re so small time.




    “Working in a circular fashion” is code for “base your analysis on circular reasoning”, this is why you all will never be considered a science, your professional “analysis” is completely based on fallacious invalid reasoning.




    Yet you can’t even point to one? Convenient.



    You refuse to point them out because they are fictional.



    This of course obviously doesn’t include reading peer-reviewed journal articles.




    So you can’t back up your claim that I am indeed crazy with any specific examples? I didn’t think so! Well I guess I can just call you crazy then since there are no standards of behavior around here. There is no way you are actually a professor, you’re nothing more than a hack masquerading as something he’s not.

    You’re actually the one who is delusional, prove me wrong :-P
    Waldorf's post summarized..."I know you are but what am I"
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Bill to allow women use of deadly force to save unborn children
    By PhinPhan1227 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-04-2009, 11:54 PM
  2. Calif Bill Would Ban Spanking Young Children
    By Celtkin in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-21-2007, 04:15 AM
  3. Creationism (sorry)
    By ABrownLamp in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 185
    Last Post: 05-11-2006, 05:03 PM
  4. creationism in our schools
    By Alien in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 12-22-2005, 07:27 PM
  5. Victory for Creationism
    By Wildbill3 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 228
    Last Post: 11-12-2004, 06:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •