biggest homegrown troll

[rugbythug]

Biggest home grown troll.

1. Mhgaff- mini nukes and tinfoil
2. Labroncofan- writing his handle is the last time he talked about football.
3. Baja- moved to Mexico to avoid to catch a predator entrapment

[RhymesayersDU]

In before complete ****storm.

Great thread, BTW.

[Taco John]

rugbythug is masterfully trolling baja. This thread is so meta.

[That One Guy]

Biggest home grown troll.

1. Mhgaff- mini nukes and tinfoil
2. Labroncofan- writing his handle is the last time he talked about football.
3. Baja- moved to Mexico to avoid to catch a predator entrapment

LOL

I'd add Epic... - A person who will simultaneously bombard you with both his science and religion despite the general acceptance that the two concepts are mutually exclusive

[That One Guy]

Where's BCJ to invoke TheRev into the thread?

It's been 10 minutes already.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Did I miss something with Baja? What's with the TCAP comment?

[alkemical]

http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/memes-smoke-packs-a-day-cigarettes-get-cancer.jpg

[Requiem]

This thread would be the best of all time had Epic been on the list.

Remove Gaffney -- he is an educated person, he actually does research and tries. Nobody really goes after his arguments, just him, which is OK (I guess) but he is pretty interesting.

I got no problem with L.A. besides him being a Lakers fan.

Baja, well I had much respect for Baja and actually sought his advice on a few topics we have mutual interest in, but ever since the Mexico **** -- he went down mega points.

As for Epic, well Epic has always, and I mean always, been disliked by a majority of this board.

I mean seriously.

LOL.

Great thread.

Usually I'd say IB4L, but this madness will undoubtedly continue!

[TheReverend]

No chance baja doesn't take #1 with a bullet.

[TheReverend]

Where's BCJ to invoke TheRev into the thread?

It's been 10 minutes already.

LOL

It's funny because it's true.

[Requiem]

Orangemane Wrestlemania at a Tailgate would be awesome.

[Beantown Bronco]

Orangemane Wrestlemania at a Tailgate would be awesome.

You can wrestle Blart.

[jhns]

Remove Gaffney -- he is an educated person, he actually does research and tries. Nobody really goes after his arguments, just him, which is OK (I guess) but he is pretty interesting.


Fail.

[That One Guy]

This thread would be the best of all time had Epic been on the list.

Remove Gaffney -- he is an educated person, he actually does research and tries. Nobody really goes after his arguments, just him, which is OK (I guess) but he is pretty interesting.

I got no problem with L.A. besides him being a Lakers fan.

Baja, well I had much respect for Baja and actually sought his advice on a few topics we have mutual interest in, but ever since the Mexico **** -- he went down mega points.

As for Epic, well Epic has always, and I mean always, been disliked by a majority of this board.

I mean seriously.

LOL.

Great thread.

Usually I'd say IB4L, but this madness will undoubtedly continue!

Epic and LABF are peas in a pod. If you could harness the energy from their jaws and put them in a room together, you'd discover perpetual energy as they screamed at each other for the rest of time.

Gaff is a great guy, I'm sure... when he's not screaming "Buy my book!", giving someone a condescending lecture on a topic he has retardedly over-thought and conspiracy-ized, or acting like a prick while invoking sources that have slightly more qualifications on which they speak than Ronald McDonald would.

And Baja is so engrossed in his one-man Mexican PR campaign that even his usual 'end of the world' nonsense is getting grating. The laid back Baja was acceptable. Aggressive, annoying, go on the attack Baja... I wanna ship that guy off to a further away foreign country.

[Crushaholic]

How does LABF even qualify as a troll? Just because he's liberal? To me, a troll is someone who likes to get someone mad just for the sport. The mods have been pretty good about banning true trolls. I call Bob a troll, but he's a Chiefs fan. This thread is seemingly about people who profess to like the Broncos, but end up trolling...

[ant1999e]

How does LABF even qualify as a troll? Just because he's liberal? To me, a troll is someone who likes to get someone mad just for the sport. The mods have been pretty good about banning true trolls. I call Bob a troll, but he's a Chiefs fan. This thread is seemingly about people who profess to like the Broncos, but end up trolling...

just because you have the words Broncos Fan in your name doen't keep you from being a troll.

[theStifmeister]

no votes for theStifmeister? I feel more screwed than al gore in 2000

[RhymesayersDU]

Totally bro, everybody knows you're the king troll.

[DHallblows]

How does LABF even qualify as a troll? Just because he's liberal? To me, a troll is someone who likes to get someone mad just for the sport. The mods have been pretty good about banning true trolls. I call Bob a troll, but he's a Chiefs fan. This thread is seemingly about people who profess to like the Broncos, but end up trolling...

You've clearly never read the NBA Thread

[That One Guy]

How does LABF even qualify as a troll? Just because he's liberal? To me, a troll is someone who likes to get someone mad just for the sport. The mods have been pretty good about banning true trolls. I call Bob a troll, but he's a Chiefs fan. This thread is seemingly about people who profess to like the Broncos, but end up trolling...

Maybe because a VERY large percentage of his posts (>95% probably?) don't have anything to do with Broncos football and then of THOSE, probably 70+% have to do with him trying to take shots at Republicans for something or posting cartoons. Very rarely does he truly bring forth a personal opinion on a matter - he rides the fence and says he's for neither X nor Y and everyone's doing it wrong. Amidst that fence sitting, he attacks people for theirs, deflects any criticism of liberals, and posts pictures.

So he has very little personal opinion that he brings and tries his damnedest to piss off others... What was your definition again?

[gunns]

LOL

I'd add Epic... - A person who will simultaneously bombard you with both his science and religion despite the general acceptance that the two concepts are mutually exclusive

Agreed. LAB mostly frequents the WPR, except with basketball, and everyone knows it, so if you go there how does that make him a troll? Same for MGaff, although with the current pelethora of stupid threads on the main board he's ventured out a litte more. I still don't see how that makes him a troll. Baja is just posting obnoxious threads, like the majority of people here, waiting for football, and if you click on one and don't like it, who's the fool? Doesn't make him a troll. Did rugbythug get his feelers hurt by one of these guys?

But Epic spreads his wealth of a lack of and obnoxious substance with every board, every thread, all the time, etc.

[TheReverend]

Baja is just posting obnoxious threads, like the majority of people here, waiting for football, and if you click on one and don't like it, who's the fool? Doesn't make him a troll.

Gunns, that's actually THE definition of a "troll"...

[Requiem]

You can wrestle Blart.

Me, Blart and Sir in a 3 way ladder match.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Isn't EpicFAIL like 500 pounds?

That would probably make him the "biggest" homegrown troll.

[oubronco]

Karenin by a mile

[ZONA]

Epic and LABF are peas in a pod. If you could harness the energy from their jaws and put them in a room together, you'd discover perpetual energy as they screamed at each other for the rest of time.





Hilarious! ROFL! Hilarious! ROFL! :strong: :strong: :strong: Ha! Ha!

[extralife]

I would win this if I wanted to

[Los Broncos]

Waiting for baja's new sex thread.

[RhymesayersDU]

"You all just think I'm a troll because the government is telling you that."

-Baja

[gunns]

Gunns, that's actually THE definition of a "troll"...

Then most of the Mane is guilty. The Main board has been ripe with trolls for months. Damn the offseason and lockout!

[oubronco]

Then most of the Mane is guilty. The Main board has been ripe with trolls for months. Damn the offseason and lockout!

No doubt come on football

[TheReverend]

Then most of the Mane is guilty. The Main board has been ripe with trolls for months. Damn the offseason and lockout!

You're definitely not understanding the difference...

[That One Guy]

Waiting for baja's new sex thread.

Hmm... Can it be any worse than Gaff telling us of his sexual escapades? That'd be a good poll...

[Bronkota]

Biggest home grown troll.

1. Mhgaff- mini nukes and tinfoil
2. Labroncofan- writing his handle is the last time he talked about football.
3. Baja- moved to Mexico to avoid to catch a predator entrapment

Lurkers vote

Baja has gone from top ten poster to replacing the the legend Mock without the laughs...

[TheReverend]

Lurkers vote

Baja has gone from top ten poster to replacing the the legend Mock without the laughs...

That's insane.

[Los Broncos]

Hmm... Can it be any worse than Gaff telling us of his sexual escapades? That'd be a good poll...

Yeah we need someone to come up with a new thread like that.

It's been a while since I had a good laugh around here.

[gunns]

You're definitely not understanding the difference...

There isn't a difference. You are just loving bashing Baja. So that possibly makes Baja a troll for the threads he's started lately. It's posting threads or posts that will get a negative rise out of people or off topic subjects that will obviously inflame people. I think you could put other threads or posts in that category lately. One example: See Least Favorite OM Poster. Here's one definition of a troll:

Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.

Here's another:

Trolling is the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet, generally on message boards. When done in a moderated internet community, this can result in banning. When done to uptight people such as rugbythug (or insert name), this can result in hilarity.

I think that troll list just got longer for some.

[TheReverend]

There isn't a difference. So that possibly makes Baja a troll for the threads he's started lately. It's posting threads or posts that will get a negative rise out of people or off topic subjects that will obviously inflame people. I think you could put other threads or posts in that category lately. One example: See Least Favorite OM Poster. Here's one definition of a troll:

Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.

Here's another:

Trolling is the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet, generally on message boards. When done in a moderated internet community, this can result in banning. When done to uptight people such as rugbythug (or insert name), this can result in hilarity.

I think that troll list just got longer for some.

Sorry but equality rolls both ways, so why don't you just come out and say "I like him and ignore it because he gives me positive attention because I have a vagina - signed gunns and blueflame" ?

[Eldorado]

hehehe. Bam.

[gunns]

Sorry but equality rolls both ways, so why don't you just come out and say "I like him and ignore it because he gives me positive attention because I have a vagina - signed gunns and blueflame" ?

I think I pushed a button. Why don't you just come out and say he was mean to me and now I can bash him?

[rugbythug]

There isn't a difference. You are just loving bashing Baja. So that possibly makes Baja a troll for the threads he's started lately. It's posting threads or posts that will get a negative rise out of people or off topic subjects that will obviously inflame people. I think you could put other threads or posts in that category lately. One example: See Least Favorite OM Poster. Here's one definition of a troll:

Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.

Here's another:

Trolling is the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet, generally on message boards. When done in a moderated internet community, this can result in banning. When done to uptight people such as rugbythug (or insert name), this can result in hilarity.
G
I think that troll list just got longer for some.

You think I am uptight? That is a puzzler

[TheReverend]

I think I pushed a button. Why don't you just come out and say he was mean to me and now I can bash him?

Ummm try harder. Read some threads. It's a consensus that he's either trolling or just ****ing incompetently crazy/stupid.

You keep up that "A boy paid attention to me!" degenerative stereotype though. That's workin out well.

[Dagmar]

http://www.ponychan.net/chan/rp/src/130827620953.gif

[TheReverend]

http://www.ponychan.net/chan/rp/src/130827620953.gif

Frankly, I don't think it's OUR collective fault that she's an escapee of the local petting zoo and adores attention from a horny, crazy, old man, so why should we all suffer the consequences?

[That One Guy]

LOL

If we could omit the lower points, this could be remembered as an epic offseason. There have been some beautiful conflicts.

And, as to the bickering... After a few of the threads Baja has started about the greatness of women (with no point beyond "I think women are great!")... umm... yeah...

[TheReverend]

LOL

If we could omit the lower points, this could be remembered as an epic offseason. There have been some beautiful conflicts.

And, as to the bickering... After a few of the threads Baja has started about the greatness of women (with no point beyond "I think women are great!")... umm... yeah...

Not cool, dude.

Let the ****ing swamp monster think she's special.

[gunns]

Ummm try harder. Read some threads. It's a consensus that he's either trolling or just ****ing incompetently crazy/stupid.

You keep up that "A boy paid attention to me!" degenerative stereotype though. That's workin out well.

I feel like I'm playing a piano. How did I know you'd react like this. So I guess since a lot of people believe it, it's true. C'mon Rev, they are opinions, like every thing else on this board. And I said he probably was a troll based on the definitions. Was it that you are probably one too? Or was it the prick part in one of the definitions that sparked this blaze with you? I guess you could now call me a troll because I got you to react. I'll take it.

[TheReverend]

I feel like I'm playing a piano. How did I know you'd react like this. So I guess since a lot of people believe it, it's true. C'mon Rev, they are opinions, like every thing else on this board. And I said he probably was a troll based on the definitions. Was it that you are probably one too? Or was it the prick part in one of the definitions that sparked this blaze with you? I guess you could now call me a troll because I got you to react. I'll take it.

rofl

http://orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=98285

Try:

C) None of the above

See above link. If that's just a "different opinion" then you're ****ing mystifying-ly stupid too.

Sadly, the reality is you're a lonely old woman who craves the anonymous attention received on the internet.

Keep playing this off as "playing me" though.

Pro tip: Walk away. You're just going to look dumb[er than you usually look]

[RhymesayersDU]

Now I've seen everything; somebody defending baja.

CATS AND DOGS, LIVING TOGETHER... MASS HYSTERIA.

[Blueflame]

Sorry but equality rolls both ways, so why don't you just come out and say "I like him and ignore it because he gives me positive attention because I have a vagina - signed gunns and blueflame" ?

Meh. It's the nature of an online forum in the offseason that there will be many threads that won't appeal to... or might even annoy... any "given" individual poster. Oh, well. It's easy enough to just not open something that doesn't look interesting and/or is started by another poster who's on your ignore list. 'Course that's perhaps not as fun as just whining about it... :P

Either way it's NMP (not my problem) and I don't care.*

*with a caveat: "as long as no forum rules are broken".

[epicSocialism4tw]

I'd add Epic... - A person who will simultaneously bombard you with both his science and religion despite the general acceptance that the two concepts are mutually exclusive

Science and religion are mutually exclusive?

Someone should have told Newton, Mendel, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Boyle, Linnaeus, Faraday, Guyot, Gray, Pasteur, Kelvin, Planck, Boyd, Smalley, Peacocke, Francis Collins, etc, etc, on and on.

I mean...the Scientific Method was literally invented by a Christian.

Occam's Razor is a principle initiated by a Christian Friar.

Its an incredibly narrow and ignorant (in the literal sense) perspective to believe what you have posted. Religious scientists exist in every university in the world.

[alkemical]

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSzdhlKZML2bjwKwGxafLeVffF08Tvv-USq9doxX0_DJ7PTBMPb

If the NFL doesn't start up, the zombie apocalypse will happen....

I have forseen it.

[lostknight]

Its an incredibly narrow and ignorant (in the literal sense) perspective to believe what you have posted.

If there is one thing that this forum proves on a daily basis is that the world is full of morons of every nationality, creed, religion (or lack thereof) and color that believe moronic things due to a moronic set of biases formed by a moronic observation of a moronic world.

[Karenin]

Karenin by a mile

It's ok, I'd be bitter too if I lived in literally the worst state in the nation. A state where the only thing it's know for is being the setting of The Grapes of Wrath. How long have you guys even had the internet out there, like two months?

[Karenin]

Sorry but equality rolls both ways, so why don't you just come out and say "I like him and ignore it because he gives me positive attention because I have a vagina - signed gunns and blueflame" ?

Aren't they both like 70 years old? Does anybody really want to see those crusty, dried up old vaginas?

[That One Guy]

Science and religion are mutually exclusive?

Someone should have told Newton, Mendel, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Boyle, Linnaeus, Faraday, Guyot, Gray, Pasteur, Kelvin, Planck, Boyd, Smalley, Peacocke, Francis Collins, etc, etc, on and on.

I mean...the Scientific Method was literally invented by a Christian.

Occam's Razor is a principle initiated by a Christian Friar.

Its an incredibly narrow and ignorant (in the literal sense) perspective to believe what you have posted. Religious scientists exist in every university in the world.

The bible is the holy book of Christianity. The bible is the foundation of the religion. If you can get through the first book of the bible and still think it coincides with science... well, more power to ya. There's just no sanity left though. All things evolving from single cell organisms and the bible's account of the creation of the universe do not sync. I know there's probably been huge $$$$ thrown at the issue to try and twist things so as to not undermine the church but the reality is if you accept most of the scientific laws and theories we accept today and you sit down with the bible, you will not come away believing they both represent the same situation.

[RhymesayersDU]

Aren't they both like 70 years old? Does anybody really want to see those crusty, dried up old vaginas?

To be fair, nobody wanted to see said vaginas at 20, either.

[rugbythug]

The bible is the holy book of Christianity. The bible is the foundation of the religion. If you can get through the first book of the bible and still think it coincides with science... well, more power to ya. There's just no sanity left though. All things evolving from single cell organisms and the bible's account of the creation of the universe do not sync. I know there's probably been huge $$$$ thrown at the issue to try and twist things so as to not undermine the church but the reality is if you accept most of the scientific laws and theories we accept today and you sit down with the bible, you will not come away believing they both represent the same situation.

Please don't try and act smart. The theory of evolution is unprovable and breaks laws of physics. Why act otherwise own your bias.

[Beantown Bronco]

The theory of evolution is unprovable and breaks laws of physics.

As opposed to creationism which is based entirely in reality......

[TheReverend]

Please don't try and act smart. The theory of evolution is unprovable and breaks laws of physics. Why act otherwise own your bias.

Not trying to be a jerk, but wait what? Link?

[jhns]

Not trying to be a jerk, but wait what? Link?

Wtf x1000

[underrated29]

This thread has like 5 or 6 different sub plots in it. Its amazing. We got the ghost busters reference and now all we need is a broncowarrior drop to make the circle complete.

[Karenin]

Please don't try and act smart. The theory of evolution is unprovable and breaks laws of physics. Why act otherwise own your bias.

Who is this dumb ****ing retard? This is the first post I ever remember seeing of yours and I'm pretty sure it's enough to land you on the ignore list.

[Tombstone RJ]

As opposed to creationism which is based entirely in reality......

Actually Genesis 1 promotes all the known laws of nature. If you study the first book of the Bible you will see that the universe is created very much in line with all the laws of nature.

However, theories like the Big Bang break all these basic scientific laws of nature.

[Karenin]

Jesus ****ing christ the retard brigade is in full swing

[jhns]

Actually Genesis 1 promotes all the known laws of nature. If you study the first book of the Bible you will see that the universe is created very much in line with all the laws of nature.

However, theories like the Big Bang break all these basic scientific laws of nature.

I won't claim to know about religion but this crap about the big bang breaking laws of nature is complete crap. Can you name a single scientific law that the big bang breaks? What is it about the religious just making **** up whenever they don't know something? I mean, I know that is what religion is but you have to realize how dumb you sound at some point...

Between this and the physics claim.... wow...

[DHallblows]

Please don't try and act smart. The theory of evolution is unprovable and breaks laws of physics. Why act otherwise own your bias.

lolz

Oh how I remember high school physics. First we learned about cell growth and then we covered ionization of atoms and how it could lead to changes in cell structure. Physics was WAY better than that pointless Biology class I had to take. In that class we learned about stupid **** like Newtonian motion and electric circuits...dumb Biology

:rofl:

[oubronco]

Jesus ****ing christ the retard brigade is in full swing

Pot meet the kettle master

[TheReverend]

lolz

Oh how I remember high school physics. First we learned about cell growth and then we covered ionization of atoms and how it could lead to changes in cell structure. Physics was WAY better than that pointless Biology class I had to take. In that class we learned about stupid **** like Newtonian motion and electric circuits...dumb Biology

:rofl:

^ More what I was going after. Big bang =/= evolution...

Food for though for the creationism/big bang debate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Church proposes big bang.
Science mocks.
Science adopts big bang.
Church mocks.

Wtf lol

[Tombstone RJ]

I won't claim to know about religion but this crap about the big bang breaking laws of nature is complete crap. Can you name a single scientific law that the big bang breaks? What is it about the religious just making **** up whenever they don't know something? I mean, I know that is what religion is but you have to realize how dumb you sound at some point...

Between this and the physics claim.... wow...

The first law of thermodynamics.

[DomCasual]

Who is this dumb ****ing retard? This is the first post I ever remember seeing of yours and I'm pretty sure it's enough to land you on the ignore list.

The 700-post imbecile who writes Jesus poetry and rides a little toy pony making fun of the guy with 4X the posts for being an unknown - and making fun of him, mind you, for...

wait for it...

defending Jesus! :D

Then again, this is the guy who is 5'7", 125, threatening to beat people up at tailgates.

Man, if you were just being a parody, I might think you were a genius. Unfortunately, you're completely serious.

[TheReverend]

The first law of thermodynamics.

The big bang theory doesn't claim energy is being created or destroyed. In fact, I believe it assumes all that energy existed in the "point of singularity"

Edit: Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm nothing more than a hobbyist for this stuff.

[jhns]

The first law of thermodynamics.

The big bang didn't create or destroy energy. There is nothing in the yheory of the big bang that states anything was created or destroyed. You need to stop spouting off **** that you heard from some uneducated priest.

[jhns]

The big bang theory doesn't claim energy is being created or destroyed. In fact, I believe it assumes all that energy existed in the "point of singularity"

Edit: Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm nothing more than a hobbyist for this stuff.

The singularity is one of many theories for the origin of the big bang. It isn't part of the big bang. The big bang has already been proven. We can see and measure it. We can tell you when it happened. The only thing left to figure out is what caused it and what was here before it.

In every theory, that I have heard, for the origin of the big bang, energy came from somewhere. I have never heard a theory where energy was created from nothing.

[DomCasual]

I had an old neighbor with a strong Northeastern accent who used to tell me, "I tell ya. I believe in the big bang theory. I believe the Good Lord said, 'Let there be life' and BANG! There was life! Whaddaya think uh that?"

He must have told me that ten times over the years.

[TheReverend]

Doesn't reply apply but I lol'd so I'm posting it here. Apologies if anyone is offended:

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Y2nzNm61_Lo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[gunns]

rofl

http://orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=98285

Try:

C) None of the above

See above link. If that's just a "different opinion" then you're ****ing mystifying-ly stupid too.

Sadly, the reality is you're a lonely old woman who craves the anonymous attention received on the internet.

Keep playing this off as "playing me" though.

Pro tip: Walk away. You're just going to look dumb[er than you usually look]

<a href="http://media.photobucket.com/image/you da man funny/Violent_Eddie_photos/Funny/youdaman.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g123/Violent_Eddie_photos/Funny/youdaman.jpg" border="0"></a>

Judging from the reps I've gotten on these posts I just may have a "consensus" as to who looks dumb and it isn't me.

[TheReverend]

Judging from the reps I've gotten on these posts I just may have a "consensus" as to who looks dumb and it isn't me.

....aaaaaaaaaaaand more evidence that you base yourself off of positive reinforcement on an internet forum. Congratulations on your sheer lack of individuality lol.

Since you brought it up, would you like to cut and paste and compare reps? There are some pretty funny ones about you. Also some posts agreeing with me ITT (while you have none... dun dun dun), but whatever.

Let me guess though, despite you bringing it up, you're "above that"?

Hypocrite idiot.

Anyway, let me know. I'm off to the gym and heading out for another vacation tonight, but I'll have time in between :)

[Irish Stout]

Please don't try and act smart. The theory of evolution is unprovable and breaks laws of physics. Why act otherwise own your bias.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?!?!?!?!?! Evolution is physics in motion. A slow progression of reactions to every action. There is no place where evolution and physics cannot work together.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The bible is the holy book of Christianity. The bible is the foundation of the religion. If you can get through the first book of the bible and still think it coincides with science... well, more power to ya. There's just no sanity left though. All things evolving from single cell organisms and the bible's account of the creation of the universe do not sync. I know there's probably been huge $$$$ thrown at the issue to try and twist things so as to not undermine the church but the reality is if you accept most of the scientific laws and theories we accept today and you sit down with the bible, you will not come away believing they both represent the same situation.

You should read more.

[That One Guy]

You should read more.

You should spin less.

[epicSocialism4tw]

You should spin less.

Seriously, man...you're about 2000 years behind scholarship here.

I'm assuming you didn't know that religious people literally created science and continue to push it forward today.

Consider yourself educated (a little).

[Irish Stout]

The bible is the holy book of Christianity. The bible is the foundation of the religion. If you can get through the first book of the bible and still think it coincides with science... well, more power to ya. There's just no sanity left though. All things evolving from single cell organisms and the bible's account of the creation of the universe do not sync. I know there's probably been huge $$$$ thrown at the issue to try and twist things so as to not undermine the church but the reality is if you accept most of the scientific laws and theories we accept today and you sit down with the bible, you will not come away believing they both represent the same situation.

BS. I don't know much outside my own church, and its a whacky church at that, but the Catholic Church accepts almost every current scientific theory with the belief and acknowledgment that scientific laws are set out by God in his creation of the universe. This involves recognition of the big bang theory through evolution. We covered these topics in Catholic school in the 80s and 90s. The teaching is that as long as one accepts that evolution is not a mere random accident over the eons but that we are the design of God created through such process, then there is no conflict with the church.

[That One Guy]

Seriously, man...you're about 2000 years behind scholarship here.

I'm assuming you didn't know that religious people literally created science and continue to push it forward today.

Consider yourself educated (a little).

Keep it simple:

Which do you believe? The big bang theory or God went "bang!" and there was the universe?

Which do you believe? That we are made in God's image, that we evolved from single cell organisms, or do you think we're originally made in God's image and he's a single cellular organism?

Do me a favor. Take one single post and 10 seconds and ONLY ANSWER THOSE TWO QUESTIONS. Don't go off in a tangent, don't answer something that wasn't asked, etc. I'll respond to a second post you make but I ask, for the sake of keeping it simple, just answer those two questions.

[That One Guy]

BS. I don't know much outside my own church, and its a whacky church at that, but the Catholic Church accepts almost every current scientific theory with the belief and acknowledgment that scientific laws are set out by God in his creation of the universe. This involves recognition of the big bang theory through evolution. We covered these topics in Catholic school in the 80s and 90s. The teaching is that as long as one accepts that evolution is not a mere random accident over the eons but that we are the design of God created through such process, then there is no conflict with the church.

So, what were Adam and Eve, species wise?

[Irish Stout]

So, what were Adam and Eve, species wise?

First people (i.e. what modern humans have looked and acted like for the past few thousand years) with souls derived from God.

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).

Just of note, I am giving you the Catholic info, not my personal beliefs. I just don't think that you either have to have science or religion and that one excludes the other. One place where I actually agree with Epic... I threw up a little in my mouth.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Keep it simple:

Which do you believe? The big bang theory or God went "bang!" and there was the universe?

Which do you believe? That we are made in God's image, that we evolved from single cell organisms, or do you think we're originally made in God's image and he's a single cellular organism?

Do me a favor. Take one single post and 10 seconds and ONLY ANSWER THOSE TWO QUESTIONS. Don't go off in a tangent, don't answer something that wasn't asked, etc. I'll respond to a second post you make but I ask, for the sake of keeping it simple, just answer those two questions.

I'll give you some advice.

The beginning of knowledge is the understanding that you know nothing.

The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God.

It shouldn't matter to you so much what I believe. I could point you in many different directions and you'd simply discredit it with your closed-minded approach and move on to reading another post. It should matter to you what you believe, and whether or not you have actually explored the knowledge that's out there. By keeping yourself closed in a box you are cheating yourself.

[That One Guy]

I'll give you some advice.

The beginning of knowledge is the understanding that you know nothing.

The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God.

It shouldn't matter to you so much what I believe. I could point you in many different directions and you'd simply discredit it with your closed-minded approach and move on to reading another post. It should matter to you what you believe, and whether or not you have actually explored the knowledge that's out there. By keeping yourself closed in a box you are cheating yourself.

My point is simply that religion spins so much crap that I don't believe most of what is mainstream accepted. If you don't want to play, I guess we're not going to get anywhere and I'll be stuck standing by my original assumption of you.

[epicSocialism4tw]

My point is simply that religion spins so much crap that I don't believe most of what is mainstream accepted. If you don't want to play, I guess we're not going to get anywhere and I'll be stuck standing by my original assumption of you.

There's as much academic criticism and analysis within the major religions as there is in science.

That would be a good place for you to start. Get educated.

[That One Guy]

First people (i.e. what modern humans have looked and acted like for the past few thousand years) with souls derived from God.



Just of note, I am giving you the Catholic info, not my personal beliefs. I just don't think that you either have to have science or religion and that one excludes the other. One place where I actually agree with Epic... I threw up a little in my mouth.

OK, for a simple breakdown of where my thoughts come from because you actually made the effort to provide realistic materials and food for thought.

We're told got created man in his image, right?

Well, we're also told by science that man is a product of evolution.


So, right from the start, either what we know today as man is not what God created in his image, we have to believe science is wrong, or we have to believe that the creation of man was a loooooooong process done through God-directed evolution.

And as for the stuff you posted, that's exactly why I have so much issue with it. The church starts coming out and saying "well, it's true... it's just not written how we're used to..." Umm, what else might you be misinterpreting from the bible then? And how mighty convenient for these misinterpretations to come to light only when they prove your golden book to be a complete farce. It's about on par with the way I understood polygamy to have gone from Mormonism: something about a church head getting a revelation that polygamy should end right about the same time the US government was about to outlaw it. How mighty convenient these things happen in such a way that lets the church try to claim they're still true and accurate...

[That One Guy]

There's as much academic criticism and analysis within the major religions as there is in science.

That would be a good place for you to start. Get educated.

You should be more concerned with having to spin your very basic beliefs than worried about my education.

[epicSocialism4tw]

You should be more concerned with having to spin your very basic beliefs than worried about my education.

Why are you concerned with what you assume to be my beliefs?

Do you want me to lay out a template for you to superimpose on yourself?

Someone already did that for you, and they are much more capable than I.

[oubronco]

http://www.seriouseats.com/recipes/images/spicyribeyesteak1.jpg

[baja]

....aaaaaaaaaaaand more evidence that you base yourself off of positive reinforcement on an internet forum. Congratulations on your sheer lack of individuality lol.

Since you brought it up, would you like to cut and paste and compare reps? There are some pretty funny ones about you. Also some posts agreeing with me ITT (while you have none... dun dun dun), but whatever.

Let me guess though, despite you bringing it up, you're "above that"?

Hypocrite idiot.

Anyway, let me know. I'm off to the gym and heading out for another vacation tonight, but I'll have time in between :)

There is hope for alcoholism, first admit you have a problem than get a sponsor.

[broncocalijohn]

Where's BCJ to invoke TheRev into the thread?

It's been 10 minutes already.

Heis off the radar on this one. I can't dispute rugs 3 selections. I went back and looked to see if labf talked football the days shanahan and mcdaniels got fired. Nope! But he was in the war forum talking up his political views and posting cartoons.

[RhymesayersDU]

There is hope for alcoholism, first admit you have a problem than get a sponsor.

The whole 12 step program is just a guise for the government controlling our thoughts.

[Irish Stout]

OK, for a simple breakdown of where my thoughts come from because you actually made the effort to provide realistic materials and food for thought.

We're told got created man in his image, right?

Well, we're also told by science that man is a product of evolution.


So, right from the start, either what we know today as man is not what God created in his image, we have to believe science is wrong, or we have to believe that the creation of man was a loooooooong process done through God-directed evolution.

And as for the stuff you posted, that's exactly why I have so much issue with it. The church starts coming out and saying "well, it's true... it's just not written how we're used to..." Umm, what else might you be misinterpreting from the bible then? And how mighty convenient for these misinterpretations to come to light only when they prove your golden book to be a complete farce. It's about on par with the way I understood polygamy to have gone from Mormonism: something about a church head getting a revelation that polygamy should end right about the same time the US government was about to outlaw it. How mighty convenient these things happen in such a way that lets the church try to claim they're still true and accurate...

And I say to myself - "Hey head, there's a wall! Lets go bang into it for a bit, eh?"

For the most part the Catholic church has never taken a strictly literal interpretation of the the gospel, and even loser with the old testament. Some of the off shooting branches of Catholicsm left based on the lack of desire of that church to take things more literally. That is all I will say on this, you can choose to believe its all a random bunch of coincidence or you can chose to believe there is a God who put it all in motion or you can believe in the ice cream man... whatever. But just as a man who wants to make a pot first needs to mine the clay from the earth, purify it of other minerals that are not ideal, cast it on a throwing wheel, shape it, direct it, let it set, glaze it and style it, then stick it in a kiln... the theory of life the universe and everything when looked at from a God driven perspective can be the same. He doesn't have what can be called a pot until it comes out kiln, everything along the way is the process of making that pot in an image he finds pleasing.

[underrated29]

This thread is getting better and better!!!



Keep it going!

[elsid13]

This thread is getting better and better!!!



Keep it going!

Only on the mane would a thread bashing the biggest dicks on the message board turn into retrial of The State of Tennessee v. Scopes

[That One Guy]

Why are you concerned with what you assume to be my beliefs?

Do you want me to lay out a template for you to superimpose on yourself?

Someone already did that for you, and they are much more capable than I.

Hey, A-hole, don't you remember how this originated in this thread? By the fact that a mere mention of anything you don't agree with religiously gets bombarded, by you, non-stop.

Rather than dispute that you're not incessant in your rantings of those topics, you come in to prove that your stance on those topics are correct. You've just proven me correct on this stance. Yes, I guess I stupidly got into the discussion with you (took the bait, if you'd prefer). That is my mistake.

[That One Guy]

And I say to myself - "Hey head, there's a wall! Lets go bang into it for a bit, eh?"

For the most part the Catholic church has never taken a strictly literal interpretation of the the gospel, and even loser with the old testament. Some of the off shooting branches of Catholicsm left based on the lack of desire of that church to take things more literally. That is all I will say on this, you can choose to believe its all a random bunch of coincidence or you can chose to believe there is a God who put it all in motion or you can believe in the ice cream man... whatever. But just as a man who wants to make a pot first needs to mine the clay from the earth, purify it of other minerals that are not ideal, cast it on a throwing wheel, shape it, direct it, let it set, glaze it and style it, then stick it in a kiln... the theory of life the universe and everything when looked at from a God driven perspective can be the same. He doesn't have what can be called a pot until it comes out kiln, everything along the way is the process of making that pot in an image he finds pleasing.

Hey, if it works for you, great. I'm not actually trying to de-religionize anyone here. You just have to accept that the choice to have faith is a personal one and just because you believe doesn't mean others do. Epic wouldn't have it that way, anything he thinks is morally wrong is condemned to hell and fury. I think it's silly to have a religion based on a religious book that you don't entirely believe... but, again, to each their own. I have much respect for those who are disciplined enough to adhere to the ideals of a good religion.

[oubronco]

http://www.applepierecipe.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Classic-Apple-Pie-Recipe-Picture1.jpg

[Tombstone RJ]

The singularity is one of many theories for the origin of the big bang. It isn't part of the big bang. The big bang has already been proven. We can see and measure it. We can tell you when it happened. The only thing left to figure out is what caused it and what was here before it.

In every theory, that I have heard, for the origin of the big bang, energy came from somewhere. I have never heard a theory where energy was created from nothing.

The Big Bang THEORY is just that, a theory. One of the biggest flaws is how the big bang originated, which you have already pointed out.

[alkemical]

what if god's image is dna?

what if the big bang is how we can relate!!! it's how life starts for humans. :D

[epicSocialism4tw]

Hey, A-hole, don't you remember how this originated in this thread? By the fact that a mere mention of anything you don't agree with religiously gets bombarded, by you, non-stop.

Rather than dispute that you're not incessant in your rantings of those topics, you come in to prove that your stance on those topics are correct. You've just proven me correct on this stance. Yes, I guess I stupidly got into the discussion with you (took the bait, if you'd prefer). That is my mistake.

No, you made the ignorant troll statement that you couldn't support.

That was your mistake.

[jhns]

The Big Bang THEORY is just that, a theory. One of the biggest flaws is how the big bang originated, which you have already pointed out.

Flaws? It isn't a flaw. You see, science doesn't claim to know what it doesn't understand. This is why science continually progresses and learns knew things. They know there is stuff we don't know. This is why religion fights every advancement that has ever been made in science. They think they know everything.

The Big Bang theory is only a theory because we don't know the origin. The big bang is a fact though. This is why even religions have accepted it. The big bang itself is what makes it impossible for us to see what happened before it. Again, we can actually see and measure the big bang. You claiming that it isn't real at this point is about the same as someone saying the Earth is flat. This is true for evolution as well.

[DomCasual]

what if god's image is dna?

what if the big bang is how we can relate!!! it's how life starts for humans. :D

What if God is a master scientist, and the earth is a giant petri dish? The earth was created because a much more evolved intelligence combined the perfect ingredients to be able to start the process of similarly evolving?

Do you suppose monkeys look at humans as having godlike abilities?

Just food for thought.

[alkemical]

What if God is a master scientist, and the earth is a giant petri dish? The earth was created because a much more evolved intelligence combined the perfect ingredients to be able to start the process of similarly evolving?

Do you suppose monkeys look at humans as having godlike abilities?

Just food for thought.


...oh i have...trust me! :)

[DivineBronco]

What if God is a master scientist, and the earth is a giant petri dish? The earth was created because a much more evolved intelligence combined the perfect ingredients to be able to start the process of similarly evolving?

Do you suppose monkeys look at humans as having godlike abilities?

Just food for thought.

why is the Bible or Book of Mormon or Koran not more clear on that...why did the higher power choose to hide behind talking animals and 6 day magic?

[alkemical]

why is the Bible or Book of Mormon or Koran not more clear on that...why did the higher power choose to hide behind talking animals and 6 day magic?

it's easier to explain things with puppets?

[DomCasual]

why is the Bible or Book of Mormon or Koran not more clear on that...why did the higher power choose to hide behind talking animals and 6 day magic?

Not everything is unclear. I don't know about the Koran much. I know the Bible is vague about it, and the Book of Mormon doesn't really cover it - different era, starting (if, for argument's sake, it's true) in 600 BC-ish.

That said, isn't there something to contemplation? Don't we have some responsibility to think it through?

My problem with most Christian religions (and thus, most Christian religions problem with me :)) is that they wish to take literally something that is not necessarily intended to be taken literally. I don't believe religion - at least the important parts of religion - has to clash with logic. There might be things that we don't completely understand - we are, after all, evolving ourselves. But they shouldn't cause us to go completely against science and logic.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Not everything is unclear. I don't know about the Koran much. I know the Bible is vague about it, and the Book of Mormon doesn't really cover it - different era, starting (if, for argument's sake, it's true) in 600 BC-ish.

That said, isn't there something to contemplation? Don't we have some responsibility to think it through?

My problem with most Christian religions (and thus, most Christian religions problem with me :)) is that they wish to take literally something that is not necessarily intended to be taken literally. I don't believe religion - at least the important parts of religion - has to clash with logic. There might be things that we don't completely understand - we are, after all, evolving ourselves. But they shouldn't cause us to go completely against science and logic.

Honestly, I don't think that your opinion represents what the Bible suggests or what Christian history shows.

The idea that "religion clashes with logic" is a myth perpetuated by the uneducated.

[DomCasual]

Honestly, I don't think that your opinion represents what the Bible suggests or what Christian history shows.

The idea that "religion clashes with logic" is a myth perpetuated by the uneducated.

You don't hang with the same Evangelical Christian crowd I do, apparently.

Not that I hang with them, really. Most of my "buddies" from my Evangelical Christian private high school deserted me when I became Mormon. But I grew up with them; and there was no logic there. I can't tell you how many times, growing up, my questions were answered with, "Ours is not to understand the ways of God," or "God said it! I believe it! And that settles it!"

Honestly, people can take some of what I believe to be the non-core beliefs of LDS doctrine and mock them. But at it's core, my opinion is that it doesn't shut out intellectual progression.

[DomCasual]

Honestly, I don't think that your opinion represents what the Bible suggests or what Christian history shows.

The idea that "religion clashes with logic" is a myth perpetuated by the uneducated.

And, by the way, I'm not implying that all Christians are like that - not even all Evangelical Christians. But the vocal majority are. They are the modern world's Pharisees, in my opinion. Some are fairly well-versed in Scripture; and they're the most un-Christlike group of people I've ever encountered. They are equal-opportunity haters. They hate the non-religious; they hate other religions; they hate people in other churches with even slightly different beliefs - they basically hate everyone.

I appreciate those who aren't that way, because I think they are going against the grain.

[ZachKC]

The Big Bang THEORY is just that, a theory. One of the biggest flaws is how the big bang originated, which you have already pointed out.

Uses of the word "theory" in science and its uses in every day language are quite different.

[Man-Goblin]

Wait, I just typed 'crusty vaginas' into the search tool, and this thread came up. What the hell is going on in here?

[That One Guy]

Not everything is unclear. I don't know about the Koran much. I know the Bible is vague about it, and the Book of Mormon doesn't really cover it - different era, starting (if, for argument's sake, it's true) in 600 BC-ish.

That said, isn't there something to contemplation? Don't we have some responsibility to think it through?

My problem with most Christian religions (and thus, most Christian religions problem with me :)) is that they wish to take literally something that is not necessarily intended to be taken literally. I don't believe religion - at least the important parts of religion - has to clash with logic. There might be things that we don't completely understand - we are, after all, evolving ourselves. But they shouldn't cause us to go completely against science and logic.

Not sure if this is a reference to the holy book or not but that's almost the attitude I seem to be getting from some of the responses. The holy book isn't literal. If a book supposedly dictated by your god can't be entirely trusted to be accurate, WTF does your religion have to build on? Maybe that's where I've strayed from those who think the two aren't mutually exclusive.

[That One Guy]

No, you made the ignorant troll statement that you couldn't support.

That was your mistake.

So, if the statement had only been:

LOL

I'd add Epic... - A person who will simultaneously bombard you with both his science and religion

despite the general acceptance that the two concepts are mutually exclusive

Then you'd have no issues?

[epicSocialism4tw]

And, by the way, I'm not implying that all Christians are like that - not even all Evangelical Christians. But the vocal majority are. They are the modern world's Pharisees, in my opinion. Some are fairly well-versed in Scripture; and they're the most un-Christlike group of people I've ever encountered. They are equal-opportunity haters. They hate the non-religious; they hate other religions; they hate people in other churches with even slightly different beliefs - they basically hate everyone.

I appreciate those who aren't that way, because I think they are going against the grain.

You are basically describing all people. Look at this forum. There are hoardes of liberal zombies running around here without a single thought in their head that wasn't put there by someone with a big megaphone. If someone doesn't agree with them, the person who doesn't line up with liberal doctrine is labeled "crazy", "stupid", or "evil". Seriously.

There are hoardes of "atheists" who don't know that they are agnostics parading around calling themselves atheists because they like the social implications of such a label. Ooh! They are such rebels!

People are just disappointing. Whether they are Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Bhuddist, atheist, or whatever.

Its just as ignorant to label some stereotypical group of Christians as people who "basically hate everyone" as it is to label all atheists as closed-minded, embittered morons.

[El Minion]

The Big Bang THEORY is just that, a theory. One of the biggest flaws is how the big bang originated, which you have already pointed out.

Gravity is just a theory as well, do you see Christians leaping over tall buildings, al a superman, smiting scientists and their scientific theories? The bible is no more a scientific model or method in explaining reality than the book of Mormon, Quran, Torah and the rest of the Monotheism's. They are in the same class as the Greek mythology with their Olympians and Titans. In fact, they are no different than The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and Alice in Wonderland in explaining the world through story.

[Fedaykin]

Science and religion are mutually exclusive?

Someone should have told Newton, Mendel, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Boyle, Linnaeus, Faraday, Guyot, Gray, Pasteur, Kelvin, Planck, Boyd, Smalley, Peacocke, Francis Collins, etc, etc, on and on.

I mean...the Scientific Method was literally invented by a Christian.

Occam's Razor is a principle initiated by a Christian Friar.

Its an incredibly narrow and ignorant (in the literal sense) perspective to believe what you have posted. Religious scientists exist in every university in the world.

Name dropping scientists does nothing to demonstrate that science and religion are not incompatable. Simply because a scientist is also religious does not mean that they used science and religion together. Humans have an indefinite potential for tolerating cognitive dissonance -- you are a great example.

In other words, Newton worked out his laws of motion through evidence, reason and logic, not through divine revelation, appeal to authority, or other tool of religion (which is a break for the religionists considering Newton's work is significantly flawed -- it'd be quite the egg on the face if Newton claimed God told him an answer that ended up being wrong!).

The people that do try to meld faith and reason, such as Francis Collins, do so with vain attempts at "God in the Gaps". A good example of that is theistic evolution which accepts Evolution but claims God drives the process.

[Rigs11]

:egbgb:You are basically describing all people. Look at this forum. There are hoardes of liberal zombies running around here without a single thought in their head that wasn't put there by someone with a big megaphone. If someone doesn't agree with them, the person who doesn't line up with liberal doctrine is labeled "crazy", "stupid", or "evil". Seriously.

There are hoardes of "atheists" who don't know that they are agnostics parading around calling themselves atheists because they like the social implications of such a label. Ooh! They are such rebels!

People are just disappointing. Whether they are Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Bhuddist, atheist, or whatever.

Its just as ignorant to label some stereotypical group of Christians as people who "basically hate everyone" as it is to label all atheists as closed-minded, embittered morons.What a load of crap.all we ever hear from you is liburl this socialist that.even when you have one in your own party.you're a parrot who defends racism but then gets butt hurt because you have women who are idiots and use the sexist card to avoid admitting that they're idiots.

[TonyR]

There are hoardes of liberal zombies running around here...

Its just as ignorant to label some stereotypical group of Christians as people who "basically hate everyone" as it is to label all atheists as closed-minded, embittered morons.

So you constantly label "liberals", as you did in this post, but then you claim that people who label "Christians" are ignorant? And then you wonder why you're one of the most hated people on this forum? People generally don't like idiots, it's really that simple. In other words, as Howard Stern's father used to say to him a a kid, "I told you not to be stupid you moron!"

[DivineBronco]

So you constantly label "liberals", as you did in this post, but then you claim that people who label "Christians" are ignorant? And then you wonder why you're one of the most hated people on this forum? People generally don't like idiots, it's really that simple. In other words, as Howard Stern's father used to say to him a a kid, "I told you not to be stupid you moron!"

I am getting to the point where I can't grasp how he doesn't get that people attack him not because of the way he views the world but because he is a raaaaaaaaaaaging prick

[Requiem]

Lol, yeah.

He's a fat, stupid, ignorant bastard who is a proponent of early earth creationism.

Nobody here likes him, yet he has almost as many posts as Mock.

Guess he needs to, with no real life people willing to tolerate his lardass.

[Houshyamama]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/beliefs.jpg

[Dagmar]

I actually was one of those people who didn't want us to draft Tebow, as when he becomes starting QB every other thread is going to become THIS by the same usual suspects.

I'm glad we have him now, I just feel bad for the mods during "in season" mode Ha!

[That One Guy]

I actually was one of those people who didn't want us to draft Tebow, as when he becomes starting QB every other thread is going to become THIS by the same usual suspects.

I'm glad we have him now, I just feel bad for the mods during "in season" mode Ha!

I've actually been quite surprised about how little we've heard about his religion since he was drafted. In the pre-draft buildup, it was constant and made me not want the guy anywhere near our team. Since then, we still know he's a churchy guy but it's went to the backburner. As long as he continues to be a football player first (in terms of his coverage), people here will gladly forget.

Now, if he stinks it up, though, all bets are off.

[Karenin]

The 700-post imbecile who writes Jesus poetry and rides a little toy pony making fun of the guy with 4X the posts for being an unknown - and making fun of him, mind you, for...

wait for it...

defending Jesus! :D

Then again, this is the guy who is 5'7", 125, threatening to beat people up at tailgates.

Man, if you were just being a parody, I might think you were a genius. Unfortunately, you're completely serious.

What the **** are you talking about you dumb mormon piece of crap? Do you have me confused with the mormon preacher that molested you when you were 5 or something? I'm not 5' 7", nor 125, nor do I write poetry, etc... I'd love to meet you in real life though.... if you weren't such a mormon pussy sack of ****.

[SoCalBronco]

What the **** are you talking about you dumb mormon piece of crap? Do you have me confused with the mormon preacher that molested you when you were 5 or something? I'd love to meet you in real life though.... if you weren't such a mormon p***Y sack of ****.

You're done, Karen. For a long time.

When you learn how to treat people with a basic sense of respect and civility, then you might get another shot. Your MO from Day 1 is nothing but constant insults and hatred towards everyone and anyone. Now you've taken it up even another notch.

You're finished for several months. This will give you sufficient time to learn how to act your age.

[RhymesayersDU]

Epic post is epic.


Any thread that results in somebody being banned is surely HOF worthy.

[baja]

Epic post is epic.


Any thread that results in somebody being banned is surely HOF worthy.

Now there is a well reasoned thought.

I must have have missed the bus pulling up and unloading these pre schoolers.

What does the DU stand for, Diapers -R-Us?

[DHallblows]

Epic post is epic.


Any thread that results in somebody being banned is surely HOF worthy.

I recal a thread you were a part of that included a banning that I would most certainly say was not HOF worthy ROFL!

[Boobs McGee]

All I can say is L o L @ this thread. Karenin is banned (thank you jeebus), the Llama is once again showing us how incredibly unlikeable he is (mods, this could be a PERFECT time to give him a timeout just for the hell of it), TheRev running away with asshole of the year award and people suckling at his teats because they want to avoid persecution (it's not going to work folks, ANYONE is a target), food jacking, popcorn eating, ghost busting....I don't know. This has ROF written aaaaaalll over it.

Subscribed.

[Requiem]

Karenin is gone. Lol!

[DomCasual]

Karenin is gone. Lol!

HAHAHAHAHA

What an idiot.

What's funny is that everything I said about him is true. He has it all over his old MySpace page, which is just high comedy.

[DomCasual]

Seven months! Good Lord! That's through the entire football season!

That.

is.

AWESOME!

:D

[Boobs McGee]

Seven months! Good Lord! That's through the entire football season!

That.

is.

AWESOME!

:D

^5

[DomCasual]

Crap, I misread the seven months thing. It's several months. Still good. The guy is a royal turd. He'll get booted as soon as he's back, too - he just can't help himself.

[Requiem]

HAHAHAHAHA

What an idiot.

What's funny is that everything I said about him is true. He has it all over his old MySpace page, which is just high comedy.

I knew that sharing his MySpace would eventually lead to his meltdown.

I thank you for being a part of the ride.

[sirhcyennek81]

Oh, snap.



:Broncos:

[Irish Stout]

I knew that sharing his MySpace would eventually lead to his meltdown.

I thank you for being a part of the ride.

Wait, what? Where?!?! Share again please!

[Requiem]

I'm on my mobile. Search Karenin Wampus MySpaxe and there you go. Should show up. Don't have the direct link.

[vancejohnson82]

wow..... leave this board for a minute and look what happens

[Requiem]

:)

The Orange Mane -- Where Amazing Happens!

[SouthStndJunkie]

Sweet....that little hobbit got the boot.

He is a little **** talker.

He would literally insult everyone and anything he could.

Then....his myspace account is found and dude is the size of a hobbit.

He looks a little like that one hobbit from 'Lord of the Rings' named Samwise Gamgee.

He ran his mouth like he was 6'5 and 275 pounds here and then I see a picture of him riding a small child's horse....and it almost fit him.

5'7 and 125 pounds might be a little on the big side for Samwise Karenin.

I figure him for 5'2 and 110 pounds of fleshy whimp.

He made himself sound like a brilliant ass beating machine and then I see a picture of him riding a tiny little horse built for 4 or 5 year old kids.

Have fun jerking off Frodo in middle earth for the next several months.

Haw haw....classic.

Props to the poster who took the mask of this turd....I see it was Dom who exposed him for the scrawny weakling he is behind the keyboard.

Props to SoCal for putting the crimp down on his ass....he serves no worthy purpose on the board.

[Crushaholic]

I guess we found our "troll winner", and it turned out to be "none of the above"...Ha!

[SouthStndJunkie]

No doubt....worked out pretty well.

[Taco John]

This is what this thread reminds me of:

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/sw5yusw80yu5sw2.gif

[RhymesayersDU]

Now there is a well reasoned thought.

I must have have missed the bus pulling up and unloading these pre schoolers.

What does the DU stand for, Diapers -R-Us?

DU is just a tool for the government to control me.

[RhymesayersDU]

I recal a thread you were a part of that included a banning that I would most certainly say was not HOF worthy ROFL!

HAH, busted.

[That One Guy]

LOL

Awesome way to end the thread

[Rock Chalk]

The bible is the holy book of Christianity. The bible is the foundation of the religion. If you can get through the first book of the bible and still think it coincides with science... well, more power to ya. There's just no sanity left though. All things evolving from single cell organisms and the bible's account of the creation of the universe do not sync. I know there's probably been huge $$$$ thrown at the issue to try and twist things so as to not undermine the church but the reality is if you accept most of the scientific laws and theories we accept today and you sit down with the bible, you will not come away believing they both represent the same situation.

Do you think, maybe, just maybe, God told Moses a parable of Creation because perhaps Moses, and humanity, was not quite capable of understanding the concepts of Evolution, the Big Bang (which btw, many scientists are starting to doubt as the beginning of our universe), and all other manner of science?

But hey, you know everything, right.

I am a firm believer in evolution. I've seen the progression of skulls of early humanoid ancestors and anyone that has seen that, put their hands on those skulls in progression and not come away with a conclusion that at least is similar to evolution is an idiot. It is a theory, but I believe that theory is correct or at least, very close to accurate. Way too much evidence supporting it and common sense after looking at that evidence tells you "maybe these guys are on to something".

I do not believe in teh Big Bang. Everything from nothing? For atheists who believe in the absurdity of God, this should be just as absurd to them, and to everyone else (again, many top cosmologists are floating away from the Big Bang idea and have some interesting alternative's to the Big Bang)

I'm also a believer in God. It's quite simple. The story of Creation is simply a story God gave to early humans about 5000 years ago in a way that they could understand and accept until they were ready, as a species, to discover for themselves.

Like Moses would know what DNA, atoms, cells, or any of that crap was.

[That One Guy]

Do you think, maybe, just maybe, God told Moses a parable of Creation because perhaps Moses, and humanity, was not quite capable of understanding the concepts of Evolution, the Big Bang (which btw, many scientists are starting to doubt as the beginning of our universe), and all other manner of science?

But hey, you know everything, right.

I am a firm believer in evolution. I've seen the progression of skulls of early humanoid ancestors and anyone that has seen that, put their hands on those skulls in progression and not come away with a conclusion that at least is similar to evolution is an idiot. It is a theory, but I believe that theory is correct or at least, very close to accurate. Way too much evidence supporting it and common sense after looking at that evidence tells you "maybe these guys are on to something".

I do not believe in teh Big Bang. Everything from nothing? For atheists who believe in the absurdity of God, this should be just as absurd to them, and to everyone else (again, many top cosmologists are floating away from the Big Bang idea and have some interesting alternative's to the Big Bang)

I'm also a believer in God. It's quite simple. The story of Creation is simply a story God gave to early humans about 5000 years ago in a way that they could understand and accept until they were ready, as a species, to discover for themselves.

Like Moses would know what DNA, atoms, cells, or any of that crap was.

I very much see your point. I pretty much agree. I just then have problems with a religion that stands based on these fictional stories they were then told because they couldn't understand the truth. How do you now, then, separate the fact from the fiction?

If the church wants to recognize the bible as a fictional work and say it's just used to guide people in their daily lives, that's great. I support people being good neighbors and citizens 100%. It's just that a completely objective person would not look at science and religion and come away thinking they both are in agreement. That's what a ranting Epic would have you believe by the way he'll interchangeably use the two for justification in his arguments.

All I know is that the bible and science don't add up perfectly. Someone's telling a tale. An open minded, honest person, in my opinion, cannot absolutely agree with both science and religion unless they're spinning something crazy.

[TailgateNut]

Do you think, maybe, just maybe, God told Moses a parable of Creation because perhaps Moses, and humanity, was not quite capable of understanding the concepts of Evolution, the Big Bang (which btw, many scientists are starting to doubt as the beginning of our universe), and all other manner of science?

But hey, you know everything, right.

I am a firm believer in evolution. I've seen the progression of skulls of early humanoid ancestors and anyone that has seen that, put their hands on those skulls in progression and not come away with a conclusion that at least is similar to evolution is an idiot. It is a theory, but I believe that theory is correct or at least, very close to accurate. Way too much evidence supporting it and common sense after looking at that evidence tells you "maybe these guys are on to something".

I do not believe in teh Big Bang. Everything from nothing? For atheists who believe in the absurdity of God, this should be just as absurd to them, and to everyone else (again, many top cosmologists are floating away from the Big Bang idea and have some interesting alternative's to the Big Bang)

I'm also a believer in God. It's quite simple. The story of Creation is simply a story God gave to early humans about 5000 years ago in a way that they could understand and accept until they were ready, as a species, to discover for themselves.

Like Moses would know what DNA, atoms, cells, or any of that crap was.


LOL

[rugbythug]

I very much see your point. I pretty much agree. I just then have problems with a religion that stands based on these fictional stories they were then told because they couldn't understand the truth. How do you now, then, separate the fact from the fiction?

If the church wants to recognize the bible as a fictional work and say it's just used to guide people in their daily lives, that's great. I support people being good neighbors and citizens 100%. It's just that a completely objective person would not look at science and religion and come away thinking they both are in agreement. That's what a ranting Epic would have you believe by the way he'll interchangeably use the two for justification in his arguments.

All I know is that the bible and science don't add up perfectly. Someone's telling a tale. An open minded, honest person, in my opinion, cannot absolutely agree with both science and religion unless they're spinning something crazy.

A completely rational person does not exsist. That why it is important to own your bias. You would not believe in god no matter the evidence. And I am the opposite. Your statement that science and christianity can not coexsist is false that is the argument.

Evolution is flawed, it explains some things well (in a vacuum) but other things not at all. Why pretend their are no flaws it is intellectually dishonest.

[That One Guy]

A completely rational person does not exsist. That why it is important to own your bias. You would not believe in god no matter the evidence. And I am the opposite. Your statement that science and christianity can not coexsist is false that is the argument.

Evolution is flawed, it explains some things well (in a vacuum) but other things not at all. Why pretend their are no flaws it is intellectually dishonest.

Well I've always had a problem saying there's no god out there but actions speak louder than words.

As for the rest, you're saying science is flawed and you believe in the religious answers. That reinforces what I was saying in that SOMEONE is telling a tale. I never said one way or the other only that both trying to explain the same thing differently do not agree.

[TheReverend]

All I can say is L o L @ this thread. Karenin is banned (thank you jeebus), the Llama is once again showing us how incredibly unlikeable he is (mods, this could be a PERFECT time to give him a timeout just for the hell of it), TheRev running away with a-hole of the year award and people suckling at his teats because they want to avoid persecution (it's not going to work folks, ANYONE is a target), food jacking, popcorn eating, ghost busting....I don't know. This has ROF written aaaaaalll over it.

Subscribed.

Ftr, everyone I've been an "a-hole" to has been a cock to me for at least weeks. I've just let it go until I felt like stopping it and when I felt like it doing it decisively so it's not an issue further.

You can claim I "get away with it" for whatever you want but the simple truth is, they've all deserved it and its all been true as opposed to the cute little random libel thrown at me. The difference is they want attention as victims. Good for them. It clearly worked on you.

[Br0nc0Buster]

I do not believe in teh Big Bang. Everything from nothing? For atheists who believe in the absurdity of God, this should be just as absurd to them, and to everyone else (again, many top cosmologists are floating away from the Big Bang idea and have some interesting alternative's to the Big Bang)



"Although the big bang theory is famous, it's also widely misunderstood. A common misperception about the theory is that it describes the origin of the universe. That's not quite right. The big bang is an attempt to explain how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today. It doesn't attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the big bang or even what lies outside the universe."

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory.htm


Perhaps you should read this, you need to brush up on your knowledge in this area

[That One Guy]

"Although the big bang theory is famous, it's also widely misunderstood. A common misperception about the theory is that it describes the origin of the universe. That's not quite right. The big bang is an attempt to explain how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today. It doesn't attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the big bang or even what lies outside the universe."

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory.htm


Perhaps you should read this, you need to brush up on your knowledge in this area

He wasn't being a dick, why be one to him?

[rbackfactory80]

Look everyone, the mane is eating itself again.

[jhns]

He wasn't being a dick, why be one to him?

Awww, how cute! Rock has someone to protect him now.

He deserves ridicule for being such a dumbass. That exact explanation has already been in this thread multiple times. When you come with such stupid **** after it has already been explained, you deserve to be ridiculed.

[jhns]

A completely rational person does not exsist. That why it is important to own your bias. You would not believe in god no matter the evidence. And I am the opposite. Your statement that science and christianity can not coexsist is false that is the argument.

Evolution is flawed, it explains some things well (in a vacuum) but other things not at all. Why pretend their are no flaws it is intellectually dishonest.

You are so full of crap. Please expand on one of your ridiculous claims. What laws of physics are being broken? What flaws are there in evolution? You keep making random claims without any specifics.

[Irish Stout]

Evolution is flawed, it explains some things well (in a vacuum) but other things not at all. Why pretend their are no flaws it is intellectually dishonest.

Evolution is exactly the opposite of being in a vacuum. Its the long term reactions and adaptations of living organisms to uncontrolled environments.

[That One Guy]

Awww, how cute! Rock has someone to protect him now.

He deserves ridicule for being such a dumbass. That exact explanation has already been in this thread multiple times. When you come with such stupid **** after it has already been explained, you deserve to be ridiculed.

No, I just value someone who at least takes the effort to explain their position vs someone doing the Epic thing and always having a "I'm smarter/more educated than you" attitude. His "maybe you should read..." is exactly what Epic used in half his posts in this thread. Being a dick does nothing good.

[oubronco]

Karenin by a mile

Guess I was right

[jhns]

No, I just value someone who at least takes the effort to explain their position vs someone doing the Epic thing and always having a "I'm smarter/more educated than you" attitude. His "maybe you should read..." is exactly what Epic used in half his posts in this thread. Being a dick does nothing good.

So that is being a dick but rock typing **** like "but hey, you know everything right." is him being nice? He isn't trying to claim he knows more as he comes with this long explanation, ignoring facts that have been posted, that is completely wrong? Why would you claim to know something when it is obvious that you haven't opened a book on the subject. People that claim the big bang says everything came from nothing, have NEVER even tried learning about the big bang. It would be like me claiming that the bible says a bunch of stuff even though I have never opened a bible. It is retarded and insults everyones intelligence.

My favorite part was about how peolle are going away from the big bang. They can't go away from it. It has already been proven. Again, we can see and measure it. The only thing that is disputed is what it came from.

[That One Guy]

So that is being a dick but rock typing **** like "but hey, you know everything right." is him being nice? He isn't trying to claim he knows more as he comes with this long explanation, ignoring facts that have been posted, that is completely wrong? Why would you claim to know something when it is obvious that you haven't opened a book on the subject. People that claim the big bang says everything came from nothing, have NEVER even tried learning about the big bang. It would be like me claiming that the bible says a bunch of stuff even though I have never opened a bible. It is retarded and insults everyones intelligence.

My favorite part was about how peolle are going away from the big bang. They can't go away from it. It has already been proven. Again, we can see and measure it. The only thing that is disputed is what it came from.

Fair enough. I forgot about his one comment even though I rolled my eyes a bit when I read it.

I'm nowhere near educated enough in the topics to know when someone makes an absurdly stupid comment so maybe that should be taken into consideration more than I'm capable. More civility just never hurts.

[broncocalijohn]

Ftr, everyone I've been an "a-hole" to has been a cock to me for at least weeks. I've just let it go until I felt like stopping it and when I felt like it doing it decisively so it's not an issue further.

You can claim I "get away with it" for whatever you want but the simple truth is, they've all deserved it and its all been true as opposed to the cute little random libel thrown at me. The difference is they want attention as victims. Good for them. It clearly worked on you.

Not everyone sees it that way. Hard to show it now while on my phone but repping me on the 13th of April, I mention twice in one day about smurf and Epic looking for ME attention by way of Rev and the lobster thread and you went gun ho after me as if I have been a thorn on your side for ever. Baja used to react like that but his old age has calmed him down when attacked.

[Fedaykin]

I am a firm believer in evolution. I've seen the progression of skulls of early humanoid ancestors and anyone that has seen that, put their hands on those skulls in progression and not come away with a conclusion that at least is similar to evolution is an idiot. It is a theory, but I believe that theory is correct or at least, very close to accurate. Way too much evidence supporting it and common sense after looking at that evidence tells you "maybe these guys are on to something".


In scientific parlance, the word "theory" does not have the same meaning as it does in the vernacular. In the vernacular, theory is used more or less interchangeable with "guess" or perhaps "educated guess". In science, a theory is not a guess but a framework that explains one or more scientific principals (often called laws).

A theory does not progress into a scientific law. Theory and law are separate separate mutually dependent units of information. A law is a formulation (often formal) of a consistently observable fact. A theory is the explanation behind that fact. In terms of evolution, there is a law of evolution (several actually), which put simply state that "species change over time". This much of evolution has been known for a long time (well before Darwin -- even the ancients observed it and understood that it happened).

The theory part of evolution is the explanation of how and why species change over time. This is the part that Darwin is credited with discovering. The Theory of Evolution (and remember, theory in this context means explanation of facts not a guess!) is currently Evolution by Natural Selection.

Now as to whether a particular theory is correct or not is certainly up for debate. Natural Selection (the modern refined version, not Darwin's) is perhaps the most solidly supported scientific theory that exists. Conversely, often things that seem very straightforward and simple are very poorly understood at the theoretical level. For example, gravitation. We understand the observable parts of gravitation very well. We've formulated equations to describe its behavior and we describe them as laws. You know what we don't have for gravitation? A good explanation for what causes it!

Newton attempted to provide a theoretical framework for gravitation, but he was completely wrong. He conceptualized gravitation as force propagation between bodies (similar to how magnetism works) and presumed that time and space were invariant.

Einstein's theory of gravitation (called the Theory of General Relativity) is (in vastly simplified and metaphorical terms) that space time itself is curved which creates the gravitational effects that we can describe. Einstein's theory has been tested for nearly a century and has been shown to be a massive improvement (thus it replaces Newtonian Gravitation) but still flawed itself as it fails to satisfactorily explain gravitation and other phenomena in all circumstances -- hence concepts such as String Theory which are attempts to fix those problems.

So on the one hand we have theory that is incredibly well supported (Natural Selection) and theory is that only provisionally accepted and has known major flaws (General Relativity). Neither will ever become "law" -- not because they aren't correct but because they are frameworks which explains laws.

[Bronco Vixen]

The Big Bang THEORY is just that, a theory. One of the biggest flaws is how the big bang originated, which you have already pointed out.

It is important to specify how you are defining the term “theory.” “Just a theory” insinuates that somehow it is not worthy of legitimacy.

People tend to throw the word theory around to characterize far-fetched conjecture, however when used scientifically it typically refers to the exact opposite - a stringently tested explanation that can unify a broad range of observations into a coherent group of general propositions.

Theory does not equal uncertainty and I seriously doubt that most respectable scientists would equate theory with indisputable fact. In fact, isn't that the beauty of the scientific method in its purest form - the systematic observation, collection, and measuring of empirical and measurable evidence such that it is open and available for careful scrutiny?

Again, in its purest form, the scientific method aims for objectivity – a reduction of inherent human bias by demanding full disclosure of relevant data, which is subject to peer review, and reproduction, to be used to form hypotheses that can be verified or nullified.

Does is always succeed? Of course not! Is it used incorrectly, to promote personal bias? Of course! Humans have a way of misusing just about everything – religion’s resume is particularly tainted in that regard [huh, huh, huh, taint].

But that does not mean that at its core, the scientific method is inherently untrustworthy. In my opinion it’s the exact opposite. Instead of an infallible set of standards and procedures that must be followed without questioning, it is open to scrutiny, and therefore represents an ongoing cycle that allows for the development of more useful, accurate and comprehensive models to follow.

[Bronco Vixen]

Name dropping scientists does nothing to demonstrate that science and religion are not incompatable. Simply because a scientist is also religious does not mean that they used science and religion together. Humans have an indefinite potential for tolerating cognitive dissonance -- you are a great example.

In other words, Newton worked out his laws of motion through evidence, reason and logic, not through divine revelation, appeal to authority, or other tool of religion (which is a break for the religionists considering Newton's work is significantly flawed -- it'd be quite the egg on the face if Newton claimed God told him an answer that ended up being wrong!).

The people that do try to meld faith and reason, such as Francis Collins, do so with vain attempts at "God in the Gaps". A good example of that is theistic evolution which accepts Evolution but claims God drives the process.

Great point. It simply cannot be argued that realms of mutual exclusivity with respect to religion and science do not exist. That is far too simplistic. Of course, there are and always have been people of faith who also consider themselves scientists, but to argue that cognitive dissonance is not involved in such cases is in my opinion not truthful.

For example, religious and scientific schemas regarding how the world came to be and how it will continue to develop are by definition mutually exclusive in many cases. Again, the scientific method is based on the fundamental belief that we must study empirical data to formulate hypotheses, which can be scrutinized (i.e., verified or nullified) and that we cannot truly “know” that which we cannot measure and manipulate in such a manner. Faith on the other hand is often defined as conviction and belief in matters that cannot be proven or measured and thus are to be taken as infallible.

I believe many of our problems arise from blanketly trying to apply one schema to all matters. Whether that be applying religious beliefs to explain how we came to be without scrutiny, testing, questioning, or amending with evolving data (which in my humble opinion can be very dangerous as it stunts curiosity and growth if we can’t be flexible and learn from our mistakes or new evidence) or vice versa – when we try to blanketly apply the scientific method to variables that cannot be easily operationalized, and perhaps shouldn’t be (i.e., the intangibles of life that gives it meaning).

[Bronco Vixen]

In scientific parlance, the word "theory" does not have the same meaning as it does in the vernacular. In the vernacular, theory is used more or less interchangeable with "guess" or perhaps "educated guess". In science, a theory is not a guess but a framework that explains one or more scientific principals (often called laws).

A theory does not progress into a scientific law. Theory and law are separate separate mutually dependent units of information. A law is a formulation (often formal) of a consistently observable fact. A theory is the explanation behind that fact. In terms of evolution, there is a law of evolution (several actually), which put simply state that "species change over time". This much of evolution has been known for a long time (well before Darwin -- even the ancients observed it and understood that it happened).

The theory part of evolution is the explanation of how and why species change over time. This is the part that Darwin is credited with discovering. The Theory of Evolution (and remember, theory in this context means explanation of facts not a guess!) is currently Evolution by Natural Selection.

Now as to whether a particular theory is correct or not is certainly up for debate. Natural Selection (the modern refined version, not Darwin's) is perhaps the most solidly supported scientific theory that exists. Conversely, often things that seem very straightforward and simple are very poorly understood at the theoretical level. For example, gravitation. We understand the observable parts of gravitation very well. We've formulated equations to describe its behavior and we describe them as laws. You know what we don't have for gravitation? A good explanation for what causes it!

Newton attempted to provide a theoretical framework for gravitation, but he was completely wrong. He conceptualized gravitation as force propagation between bodies (similar to how magnetism works) and presumed that time and space were invariant.

Einstein's theory of gravitation (called the Theory of General Relativity) is (in vastly simplified and metaphorical terms) that space time itself is curved which creates the gravitational effects that we can describe. Einstein's theory has been tested for nearly a century and has been shown to be a massive improvement (thus it replaces Newtonian Gravitation) but still flawed itself as it fails to satisfactorily explain gravitation and other phenomena in all circumstances -- hence concepts such as String Theory which are attempts to fix those problems.

So on the one hand we have theory that is incredibly well supported (Natural Selection) and theory is that only provisionally accepted and has known major flaws (General Relativity). Neither will ever become "law" -- not because they aren't correct but because they are frameworks which explains laws.

Yikes, that'll learn me to read through the entire thread before commenting. Sorry for the redundancy. Extra awesome when your EXACT point is articulated a thousand times more eloquently IN THE COMMENT IMMEDIATELY ABOVE IT!!!

[errand]

Maybe because a VERY large percentage of his posts (>95% probably?) don't have anything to do with Broncos football and then of THOSE, probably 70+% have to do with him trying to take shots at Republicans for something or posting cartoons. Very rarely does he truly bring forth a personal opinion on a matter - he rides the fence and says he's for neither X nor Y and everyone's doing it wrong. Amidst that fence sitting, he attacks people for theirs, deflects any criticism of liberals, and posts pictures.

So he has very little personal opinion that he brings and tries his damnedest to piss off others... What was your definition again?

..not to mention in the old days when you clicked on his profile you were automatically sent to his blog or newsletter...he's a Democrat hack who argues party talking points and yet claims everyone else is some moron who only votes party line....

[Tombstone RJ]

It is important to specify how you are defining the term “theory.” “Just a theory” insinuates that somehow it is not worthy of legitimacy.

People tend to throw the word theory around to characterize far-fetched conjecture, however when used scientifically it typically refers to the exact opposite - a stringently tested explanation that can unify a broad range of observations into a coherent group of general propositions.

Theory does not equal uncertainty and I seriously doubt that most respectable scientists would equate theory with indisputable fact. In fact, isn't that the beauty of the scientific method in its purest form - the systematic observation, collection, and measuring of empirical and measurable evidence such that it is open and available for careful scrutiny?

Again, in its purest form, the scientific method aims for objectivity – a reduction of inherent human bias by demanding full disclosure of relevant data, which is subject to peer review, and reproduction, to be used to form hypotheses that can be verified or nullified.

Does is always succeed? Of course not! Is it used incorrectly, to promote personal bias? Of course! Humans have a way of misusing just about everything – religion’s resume is particularly tainted in that regard [huh, huh, huh, taint].

But that does not mean that at its core, the scientific method is inherently untrustworthy. In my opinion it’s the exact opposite. Instead of an infallible set of standards and procedures that must be followed without questioning, it is open to scrutiny, and therefore represents an ongoing cycle that allows for the development of more useful, accurate and comprehensive models to follow.

There's one main problem with the Scientific Method, it's subject to human error and interpretation. That is, we can never get out of being Human, hence, we cannot know anything in a truly "objective" way.

It's funny that we strive to know the universe (and rightfully so) yet we have no way of knowing if our own nature systemically inhibits us from understanding the data we are bombarded with. Numbers are the truest form of knowing "truth" that is, 1 + 1= 2. But when we get into things we don't understand, like the how the universe was "created" out of a big bang (I use "create" because that is what the beginning of the big bang is, a man made created event at the beginning of time, in other words, a story created by science in order for us to piece together what we are currently observing, yet have no way of understanding).

Anyhow, I'm way off on a tangent, but I understand what your point is :thumbsup:

[Bronco Vixen]

There's one main problem with the Scientific Method, it's subject to human error and interpretation. That is, we can never get out of being Human, hence, we cannot know anything in a truly "objective" way.

It's funny that we strive to know the universe (and rightfully so) yet we have no way of knowing if our own nature systemically inhibits us from understanding the data we are bombarded with. Numbers are the truest form of knowing "truth" that is, 1 + 1= 2. But when we get into things we don't understand, like the how the universe was "created" out of a big bang (I use "create" because that is what the beginning of the big bang is, a man made created event at the beginning of time, in other words, a story created by science in order for us to piece together what we are currently observing, yet have no way of understanding).

Anyhow, I'm way off on a tangent, but I understand what your point is :thumbsup:

That is an outstanding point. When you think about it, even from the initial moment that we are bombarded by sensory stimuli in the world, our finite sensory receptors are forced to “select” and “limit” what we actually transduce into neural energy and thus ultimately perceive. We are a limited species indeed, able to attend to onely a fraction of the sensory stimuli we encounter at any given moment (a significantly smaller fraction if you are male :) . That limiting trend only continues as information travels throughout the brain – first subcortically (and thus unconsciously) depending on level of alertness and attentional capacity and certainly once our cortex comes into play adding the human complexity of past experience, those dreaded emotions (see the female brain), stereotypes etc. So by the time we get to actual awareness and higher order recognition of what we perceive, it’s already all mucked up so to speak.

Bottom line, you’re absolutely right, there’s about a billion opportunities for us to be biased, limited, and influenced even when we have golden intentions. But at least the framework is there with science, and ideally with adequate insight into our limitations, scrutiny, replication etc., we can strive to approximate truth.

[DomCasual]

You are basically describing all people. Look at this forum. There are hoardes of liberal zombies running around here without a single thought in their head that wasn't put there by someone with a big megaphone. If someone doesn't agree with them, the person who doesn't line up with liberal doctrine is labeled "crazy", "stupid", or "evil". Seriously.

There are hoardes of "atheists" who don't know that they are agnostics parading around calling themselves atheists because they like the social implications of such a label. Ooh! They are such rebels!

People are just disappointing. Whether they are Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Bhuddist, atheist, or whatever.

Its just as ignorant to label some stereotypical group of Christians as people who "basically hate everyone" as it is to label all atheists as closed-minded, embittered morons.

I respectfully disagree. I'll just talk about it from an LDS perspective, but you could really use the same analogy for other religions.

Go to a Mormon event - you could use stuff like the Hill Cumorah pageant in upstate New York; semi-annual LDS General Conference here in SLC; any of the LDS historical celebrations around the US, etc as examples. What you will find at all of them are Evangelical Christians picketing and handing out anti-Mormon propaganda outside the event. The recent article (http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Vote-for-Romney-Is-a-Vote-for-the-LDS-Church-Warren-Cole-Smith-05-24-2011.html) by Warren Cole Smith is a great representation of this concept. They obsess with other religions.

I guess my question always comes back to, "Why?" Why isn't a person's faith enough to stand on, without having to tear other people down? Have you ever heard of Mormons or Catholics picketing the celebrations of other religions? Methodists? Episcopalians? Lutherans? Are there any of those religions shouting hate at, say, a Billy Graham crusade? No. The messages shared by most of those religions are positive. They may proselyte; but they generally do so by sharing the positive aspects of their own faith.

Who gives Evangelicals the right to dictate whether a Mormon, or a Catholic (as was the case with JFK) has a good enough religion to lead (as is the case with the article I referenced above)? Who decided that Evangelicals were the standard by which other religions are judged?

Honestly, I get tired of it. I think the Evangelicals have painted faith in the United States, in general, into a corner. I don't really blame liberals for blasting people of faith. The message of the Evangelical Christians - the people of religion who seem to be the most vocal - is, "WE ARE RIGHT! YOU ARE WRONG! YOU COME TO US, BECAUSE WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO TRY AND MEET IN THE MIDDLE WITH THOSE WHO DO EVIL?" And who does evil? Everyone who is not a born-again Christian! Heck, they even judge each other! Some speak in tongues (Pentecostals, Church of Christ, etc). Others say speaking in tongues is of the devil (Baptists, mostly). One issue, and they despise each other over it! And that is just one issue.

Last I checked, Evangelical Christians made up about 25% of the US population. It's not enough to do much socially or politically, long-term, without the cooperation of others, in other words. You wouldn't get that by watching how they act.

Sorry, man - I don't want to sound as if I am attacking you, personally. But I admit, I have a big attitude about the Evangelical movement. I have a lifetime of experiences that have contributed to it.

[barryr]

I never see threads that ever involve religion and science where someone on either side decides they have seen the light and changed their mind. It is just more rehashing of the hundreds, it seems, of other similar threads and points. It is possible to believe in both, but some treat religion like it is the plague. We do not have all the answers to life, so people can stop pretending they do.

[vancejohnson82]

who gives a crap...we are all monkeys with clothes

[Requiem]

Religion: Created by Man.

So apparently, Barry Rammey -- we do have all the answers.

[Cito Pelon]

who gives a crap...we are all monkeys with clothes

I prefer to think of myself as a monkey with silk pajamas.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I respectfully disagree. I'll just talk about it from an LDS perspective, but you could really use the same analogy for other religions.

Go to a Mormon event - you could use stuff like the Hill Cumorah pageant in upstate New York; semi-annual LDS General Conference here in SLC; any of the LDS historical celebrations around the US, etc as examples. What you will find at all of them are Evangelical Christians picketing and handing out anti-Mormon propaganda outside the event. The recent article (http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Vote-for-Romney-Is-a-Vote-for-the-LDS-Church-Warren-Cole-Smith-05-24-2011.html) by Warren Cole Smith is a great representation of this concept. They obsess with other religions.

I guess my question always comes back to, "Why?" Why isn't a person's faith enough to stand on, without having to tear other people down? Have you ever heard of Mormons or Catholics picketing the celebrations of other religions? Methodists? Episcopalians? Lutherans? Are there any of those religions shouting hate at, say, a Billy Graham crusade? No. The messages shared by most of those religions are positive. They may proselyte; but they generally do so by sharing the positive aspects of their own faith.

Who gives Evangelicals the right to dictate whether a Mormon, or a Catholic (as was the case with JFK) has a good enough religion to lead (as is the case with the article I referenced above)? Who decided that Evangelicals were the standard by which other religions are judged?

Honestly, I get tired of it. I think the Evangelicals have painted faith in the United States, in general, into a corner. I don't really blame liberals for blasting people of faith. The message of the Evangelical Christians - the people of religion who seem to be the most vocal - is, "WE ARE RIGHT! YOU ARE WRONG! YOU COME TO US, BECAUSE WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO TRY AND MEET IN THE MIDDLE WITH THOSE WHO DO EVIL?" And who does evil? Everyone who is not a born-again Christian! Heck, they even judge each other! Some speak in tongues (Pentecostals, Church of Christ, etc). Others say speaking in tongues is of the devil (Baptists, mostly). One issue, and they despise each other over it! And that is just one issue.

Last I checked, Evangelical Christians made up about 25% of the US population. It's not enough to do much socially or politically, long-term, without the cooperation of others, in other words. You wouldn't get that by watching how they act.

Sorry, man - I don't want to sound as if I am attacking you, personally. But I admit, I have a big attitude about the Evangelical movement. I have a lifetime of experiences that have contributed to it.

1) I'm not an evangelical Christian.

2) There are things about many religious groups that I don't like. I don't like it when young guys on bikes show up at my door under the premise that I need their guidance to achieve what Mormons believe that I need to achieve. Does that make me dislike everything Mormon? No. You should remember how I (a non-denominational Christian) have defended Mormonism and peoples' right to believe it and not be ridiculed here time and time again. So maybe things are more nuanced?

3) I think that you'd be surprised at how diverse protestant Christianity is in the United States. What you're doing is kind of like saying that all Mormons are polygamists and wear full-length denim dresses. There are things about all Christian sects to appreciate, IMO. There are things about Catholicism that I love, things about Baptists that I love, etc. Mormonism is no different. Mormons do alot of great things in their communities, and are as committed to upholding values and standards as anyone else in the world. There is alot to appreciate.

[DomCasual]

1) I'm not an evangelical Christian.
Sorry, if I implied that you were, I didn't mean to. I was just responding to your initial response to my comment about Evangelicals.

2) There are things about many religious groups that I don't like. I don't like it when young guys on bikes show up at my door under the premise that I need their guidance to achieve what Mormons believe that I need to achieve. Does that make me dislike everything Mormon? No. You should remember how I (a non-denominational Christian) have defended Mormonism and peoples' right to believe it and not be ridiculed here time and time again. So maybe things are more nuanced?

I think there's a difference between a couple nineteen-year-old kids proselyting, and a bunch of angry people carrying around picket signs outside an event that has nothing to do with them. And if you can find me one single article on the LDS side of things that compares with the article I referenced above, I will be shocked. I, on the other hand, could find many where that came from.

And I have taken notice when you've defended Mormons. As I said a couple times in those posts, I didn't want those comments to sound like they were directed at you.

3) I think that you'd be surprised at how diverse protestant Christianity is in the United States. What you're doing is kind of like saying that all Mormons are polygamists and wear full-length denim dresses. There are things about all Christian sects to appreciate, IMO. There are things about Catholicism that I love, things about Baptists that I love, etc. Mormonism is no different. Mormons do alot of great things in their communities, and are as committed to upholding values and standards as anyone else in the world. There is alot to appreciate.

I could cite example after example. I could write a book of examples, from a personal standpoint. On the other hand, I doubt that you've had a single run-in with a fundamentalist (ex)Mormon polygamist, but I get your point.

Again, I have no issue, at all, with the vast majority of people of faith in this country. The vast majority of them are respectful of other faiths. My problem is with the guys who, like Fred Phelps (albeit, to a lesser degree), feel like their message needs to be one of hate.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Biggest home grown troll.



You.

Your decision to start this thread is all the evidence we need.

[Kaylore]

Yeah there is a difference. I am not offended with a JW comes to my door and wants to "save" me. I think the approach is different. Llama, when those 19 year olds come to your door, are they telling you you worship the devil, are evil and going to burn in hell? Are they screaming at you? If so, then I apologize and they are doing wrong for sure. My suspicion is they are probably smiling and polite. That is not what the people picketing our church buildings are doing.

If someone wants to help you with something you don't want or at least feel you need, I have a hard time seeing how someone could get angry. When someone is telling you you are evil and going to burn, I completely get that. I've been getting that my whole life. Fortunately most Christians that don't agree with my beliefs are pretty cool to me...well at least to my face anyway.

[Cito Pelon]

The LDS is a fascinating branch of Christianity. I consider the LDS as legit as any other branch. I always figured the LDS was one of the lost tribes of Israel that wandered into the New World. The only trouble is there is no DNA evidence of Old World genes in New World archaeology.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Yeah there is a difference. I am not offended with a JW comes to my door and wants to "save" me. I think the approach is different. Llama, when those 19 year olds come to your door, are they telling you you worship the devil, are evil and going to burn in hell? Are they screaming at you? If so, then I apologize and they are doing wrong for sure. My suspicion is they are probably smiling and polite. That is not what the people picketing our church buildings are doing.

If someone wants to help you with something you don't want or at least feel you need, I have a hard time seeing how someone could get angry. When someone is telling you you are evil and going to burn, I completely get that. I've been getting that my whole life. Fortunately most Christians that don't agree with my beliefs are pretty cool to me...well at least to my face anyway.

If you guys are using Fred Phelps and his church of like 5 people as an example, then you may want to take a deeper look.

[DomCasual]

1) I'm not an evangelical Christian.

2) There are things about many religious groups that I don't like. I don't like it when young guys on bikes show up at my door under the premise that I need their guidance to achieve what Mormons believe that I need to achieve. Does that make me dislike everything Mormon? No. You should remember how I (a non-denominational Christian) have defended Mormonism and peoples' right to believe it and not be ridiculed here time and time again. So maybe things are more nuanced?

3) I think that you'd be surprised at how diverse protestant Christianity is in the United States. What you're doing is kind of like saying that all Mormons are polygamists and wear full-length denim dresses. There are things about all Christian sects to appreciate, IMO. There are things about Catholicism that I love, things about Baptists that I love, etc. Mormonism is no different. Mormons do alot of great things in their communities, and are as committed to upholding values and standards as anyone else in the world. There is alot to appreciate.

One more thing on this that I just noticed, and then I'll be done. The comment that I bolded above - I actually don't think I would be surprised, at all. When you talk about protestants, you are incorporating many, many different sects, comprising literally tens of millions of people. Generally speaking, I have had great experiences with Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, and Seventh-Day Adventists (what few I've known). Even going outside Protestantism - practicing Jews, Hindus, Buddhists (again, what few I know) - the people seem genuinely decent and respectful.

When I served a mission, some of the nicest people I met were members of predominantly-black churches - most of which would consider themselves Evangelical Christians. Everywhere we went, we would have them honk and wave at us. A couple times, they saw us out about dinnertime, and they insisted we go back to their homes with them so that they could feed us. At one church, the pastor invited me to come up to the pulpit to spend ten minutes talking about what we believed. I was nervous as heck, but I stayed positive, and really focused on the beliefs I knew we had in common. After that service, I've never been hugged as much, in one sitting. There was no proselyting going on. It was just two very different groups of people, trying to be kind and accepting to each other.

MOST people of faith are like that. Almost 80% of the US claims affiliation with some religion or church. Only about 20%-25% are actually Evangelical Christians. It just so happens that they make the most noise, so the rest of us usually get lumped in with them.

Sorry, this is obviously an issue about which I am extremely passionate. I apologize for the long posts/rants.

[DomCasual]

If you guys are using Fred Phelps and his church of like 5 people as an example, then you may want to take a deeper look.

It's an extreme example. But it isn't as extreme as you might think.

The tactics he uses - the picketing, the screaming, etc - are tactics I see all the time at LDS events. The difference with Fred Phelps is that 1) he's chosen a very random, strange target (military funerals), and 2) he uses words on his signs (******, homo, queer) that are offensive to just about everyone. But he certainly has no exclusive on the angry, picketing crowds.

Anyway, I'll try to be done talking about this. I know that there are very few that it interests.

In the meantime, here are some visuals we see at every semi-major LDS event:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zVu0FGxQvzg/Sb7BzbtjluI/AAAAAAAAAPk/RGaweeOxngI/s320/alw37.jpg
http://www.fairlds.org/graphics/alw19.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zVu0FGxQvzg/Sb6_Gw4B0JI/AAAAAAAAAPE/UFX8l-Jny3I/s320/alw41.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_zVu0FGxQvzg/Sb68X2JaiPI/AAAAAAAAAOk/Ukbe6DOwcfQ/s320/anti-sign.jpg

<iframe frameborder="0" width="480" height="360" src="http://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x1lgse"></iframe><br /><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1lgse_mormon-conference-protesters-3-31-0_news" target="_blank">Mormon Conference Protesters-3/31/07</a> <i>by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/samueltheutahnite" target="_blank">samueltheutahnite</a></i>

[DomCasual]

This seems like a good time for a celebratory reminder that karenin was banned!

MWAHAHAHAHA!

[broncocalijohn]

I think I saw Freak6 and Karenin in one of those protest. Karenin was hard to spot but if you look really, really low to the ground, he is standing on his tippy toes.

[epicSocialism4tw]

It's an extreme example. But it isn't as extreme as you might think.

The tactics he uses - the picketing, the screaming, etc - are tactics I see all the time at LDS events. The difference with Fred Phelps is that 1) he's chosen a very random, strange target (military funerals), and 2) he uses words on his signs (******, homo, queer) that are offensive to just about everyone. But he certainly has no exclusive on the angry, picketing crowds.

Anyway, I'll try to be done talking about this. I know that there are very few that it interests.

In the meantime, here are some visuals we see at every semi-major LDS event:


Those tactics are typical of people with political agendas. Its what you see at Code Pink, MoveOn.org, and Union protests, etc. Its not unique to fringe evangelical churches.

But here's something that we all need to understand...protestants, mormons, catholics, as well as jews, bhuddists, hindus, and muslims...there are movements in this country to push religious groups out of existence. Its more important that we focus on our common values than anything else. We can rebuild a broken country into a place that will continue to allow our peoples the freedom to worship, or we can allow ourselves to be factionalized and watch it slip away.

[Kaylore]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_zVu0FGxQvzg/Sb68X2JaiPI/AAAAAAAAAOk/Ukbe6DOwcfQ/s320/anti-sign.jpg

So we're worse than a child-molesting homosexual. Does that make molesting worse, if the molester is gay?

[Cito Pelon]

It never ceases to amaze me how the branches of Jesus' ministry, himself the only son of the Hebrew God, attack each other violently.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

I prefer to think of myself as a monkey with silk pajamas.

I'm a monkey in a smoking jacket.

Curtains open. Lllllllladies.

[sirhcyennek81]

Yeah there is a difference. 1. I am not offended with a JW comes to my door and wants to "save" me. I think the approach is different. Llama, 2. when those 19 year olds come to your door, are they telling you you worship the devil, are evil and going to burn in hell? Are they screaming at you? If so, then I apologize and they are doing wrong for sure. My suspicion is they are probably smiling and polite. That is not what the people picketing our church buildings are doing.

If someone wants to help you with something you don't want or at least feel you need, I have a hard time seeing how someone could get angry. When someone is telling you you are evil and going to burn, I completely get that. I've been getting that my whole life. Fortunately most Christians that don't agree with my beliefs are pretty cool to me...well at least to my face anyway.


1. We had Jehovah's Witnesses coming to my house pretty regularly until I told them I was not interested, was perfectly happy with being Roman Catholic and would appreciate it if they got off my porch. They still come by, but not when my car is in the driveway. I think they are working on my grandmother...good luck with that one. The woman is a methodist...

2. I feel bad for the mormon kids who are out in July and August in 100 degree heat. So when they hit my house, I let them in, relax for a few minutes, listen to them and then send them on their way. No point being a dick about what they believe and what I believe.

:Broncos:

[sirhcyennek81]

Religion: Created by Man.

So apparently, Barry Rammey -- we do have all the answers.


Science is also created by man.


:Broncos:

[epicSocialism4tw]

It never ceases to amaze me how the branches of Jesus' ministry, himself the only son of the Hebrew God, attack each other violently.

Its the state of man.

It should not surprise anyone because it has been an inseparable part of humanity throughout its entire historical existence.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Science is also created by man.


:Broncos:

Science was actually created by a religious man. Ha!

[sirhcyennek81]

It never ceases to amaze me how the branches of Jesus' ministry, himself the only son of the Hebrew God, attack each other violently.


People are that way. If you have three people in a room, you will have six opinions.


:Broncos:

[Grumps]

So we're worse than a child-molesting homosexual. Does that make molesting worse, if the molester is gay?

Forget that nonsense. Sin is sin. All the same and all as ugly in God's sight.

What you do and what you believe is between you and God. Doesn't mean that people of different beliefs cannot have a mature and respectful conversation about what they believe. I don't agree with LDS, but have had many conversations with Mormons. All have been fruitful and respectful. Like I said, ultimately a person's faith is between them and God, so I leave it there. No reason to get bent out of shape when someone doesn't believe what you believe.

Obviously people who say nasty and ugly things and hold up signs like Dom posted hasn't really paid much attention to the teachings of the New Testament.

[That One Guy]

Science was created? Silly.

Science was created by a religious man? Sillier.

I tried to run over a Mormon once but he jumped out from in front of my car just in time. Probably better for everyone but I was trying.

Some religions are just so silly, I don't understand how people can (assuming they actually do) believe all the tenets of a religion. Particularly those who convert. I can understand if you've been brainwashed all along about your religious stories and know nothing else but to have already been a thinking person and still buy in? I promise I'm not trying to be a pain but would genuinely love an opportunity to sit down with someone and probe them. Unfortunately, I probably couldn't do it without seeming mocking so it wouldn't happen. Why am I still rambling?

[Eldorado]

Science was created? Silly.

Science was created by a religious man? Sillier.

I tried to run over a Mormon once but he jumped out from in front of my car just in time. Probably better for everyone but I was trying.

Some religions are just so silly, I don't understand how people can (assuming they actually do) believe all the tenets of a religion. Particularly those who convert. I can understand if you've been brainwashed all along about your religious stories and know nothing else but to have already been a thinking person and still buy in? I promise I'm not trying to be a pain but would genuinely love an opportunity to sit down with someone and probe them. Unfortunately, I probably couldn't do it without seeming mocking so it wouldn't happen. Why am I still rambling?

Remind me not to sit down with you.

[That One Guy]

Remind me not to sit down with you.

LOL

Their minds, not them, I guess.

Besides, from what I know of religious people in the news, I'd be on the receiving end and that definitely takes it out of consideration.

[Cito Pelon]

Its the state of man.

It should not surprise anyone because it has been an inseparable part of humanity throughout its entire historical existence.

True.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Science was created? Silly.

Science was created by a religious man? Sillier.

Those are the facts, ma'am.

The scientific method began with Sir Francis Bacon, who was a religious man who wrote several essays on religious philosophy.

That's what happened.

And yes...science was undoubtedly created by men. The entire body of information, the techniques, the procedures, the experiments...all created, devised, and carried out by men seeking the answers that men seek.

It wasn't rabbits or fish or frogs or aliens that created science. It is a characteristic human set of behaviors localized and enacted by Homo sapiens of this unique terrestrial ball.

[Cito Pelon]

People are that way. If you have three people in a room, you will have six opinions.


:Broncos:

We're a contentious bunch, that's for sure.

[myMind]

Those are the facts, ma'am.

The scientific method began with Sir Francis Bacon, who was a religious man who wrote several essays on religious philosophy.

That's what happened.

And yes...science was undoubtedly created by men. The entire body of information, the techniques, the procedures, the experiments...all created, devised, and carried out by men seeking the answers that men seek.

It wasn't rabbits or fish or frogs or aliens that created science. It is a characteristic human set of behaviors localized and enacted by Homo sapiens of this unique terrestrial ball.

Who Invented the Scientific Method? Who Discovered the Scientific Method?
No one person can be credited as the inventor of the scientific method. It was really not “invented” but recognized and developed as the natural method of obtaining reliable knowledge.

History of the Scientific Method
Many authors trace the beginning of the scientific method and experimenting back to ancient artisans, Greeks, Arabs, Spaniards, and others.

Aristotle Scientific Method
Aristotle (384–322 BCE) was one of history’s noted original thinkers, first for devising methods for trying to arrive at reliable knowledge based on observation.

Bacon Scientific Method – Who Came up with the Scientific Method?
Roger Bacon (1214–1294), drawing on the writings of Muslim scientists, described a repeating cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and verification.

Galileo Scientific Method – Father of the Scientific Method
In our modern culture, Galileo (1564–1642) is generally credited with being the father of the scientific method. The Encyclopedia Britannica (1970) says:

“Even while Bacon was philosophizing, the true method was being practiced by Galileo, who, with a combination of observation, hypothesis, mathematical deduction and confirmatory experiment founded the science of dynamics.
Francis Bacon Scientific Method
Bacon is famous for explaining his method in Novum Organum, published in 1622. He is very widely mentioned in the literature for his contribution to the scientific method.

Descartes Scientific MethodDescartes’ 1637 treatise Discourse on Method is well-known and was also a contribution to the development of the scientific method.

http://www.scientificmethod.com/sm5_smhistory.html

[epicSocialism4tw]

Who Invented the Scientific Method? Who Discovered the Scientific Method?
No one person can be credited as the inventor of the scientific method. It was really not “invented” but recognized and developed as the natural method of obtaining reliable knowledge.

It was "recognized"? You have to have seen something before to be able to recognize it the next time you see it, correct?

As if it was already in existence and someone just stubled upon it? That's goofy. The human brain defines reality on its own terms, not on purely phenomenal terms, because that is impossible. The scientific method was born when Francis Bacon decided that inductive reasoning was more useful than deductive reasoning. That happened within his mind, as a process of thoughts and memories that are built from his experiences. His mind created that relationship, and his mind passed the relationship on to other minds. It did not exist before it existed in his mind.

FYI, both Bacon and Galileo were highly religious...as was Descartes.

[That One Guy]

It was "recognized"? You have to have seen something before to be able to recognize it the next time you see it, correct?

As if it was already in existence and someone just stubled upon it? That's goofy. The human brain defines reality on its own terms, not on purely phenomenal terms, because that is impossible. The scientific method was born when Francis Bacon decided that inductive reasoning was more useful than deductive reasoning. That happened within his mind, as a process of thoughts and memories that are built from his experiences. His mind created that relationship, and his mind passed the relationship on to other minds. It did not exist before it existed in his mind.

FYI, both Bacon and Galileo were highly religious...as was Descartes.

You're hilarious. He got my point and now you're stuck trying to backpedal and explain it as only meaning the scientific method (the original statement is "science" not "scientific method") and trying to claim one guy, alone, discovered it. Wonderful.

[rugbythug]

Science was created? Silly.

Science was created by a religious man? Sillier.

I tried to run over a Mormon once but he jumped out from in front of my car just in time. Probably better for everyone but I was trying.

Some religions are just so silly, I don't understand how people can (assuming they actually do) believe all the tenets of a religion. Particularly those who convert. I can understand if you've been brainwashed all along about your religious stories and know nothing else but to have already been a thinking person and still buy in? I promise I'm not trying to be a pain but would genuinely love an opportunity to sit down with someone and probe them. Unfortunately, I probably couldn't do it without seeming mocking so it wouldn't happen. Why am I still rambling?

Someone who can not contemplate their preconcieved notion being wrong has no business hiding behind science.

[epicSocialism4tw]

You're hilarious. He got my point and now you're stuck trying to backpedal and explain it as only meaning the scientific method (the original statement is "science" not "scientific method") and trying to claim one guy, alone, discovered it. Wonderful.

Sorry fella.

The scientific method is science.

Quit while you're behind.

[ghwk]

Sorry fella.

The scientific method is science.

Quit while you're behind.

You really weigh 500 lbs?

Subscribed. ROFL!

[DivineBronco]

You really weigh 500 lbs?

Subscribed. ROFL!

enough people have said this that it is clearly pretty close to true......I think we need some visual proof
anyone anyone

[broncocalijohn]

enough people have said this that it is clearly pretty close to true......I think we need some visual proof
anyone anyone

and an old picture of Boob with Dirk's face doesnt count.

[Br0nc0Buster]

You really weigh 500 lbs?

Subscribed. ROFL!

ROFL!

If true, that would explain a lot

[epicSocialism4tw]

You really weigh 500 lbs?

Subscribed. ROFL!

Not sure where that came from, but whatever gets you through the night is alright, right? Ha!

You guys are stretching here.

And no, I won't post a picture so you and Requiem can stalk me outside this forum. At least this reveals that you guys haven't been able to stalk me yet.

[DivineBronco]

Not sure where that came from, but whatever gets you through the night is alright, right? Ha!

You guys are stretching here.

And no, I won't post a picture so you and Requiem can stalk me outside this forum. At least this reveals that you guys haven't been able to stalk me yet.

ooooo getting a bit closer to the truth.......yikes

[barryr]

Seems as though the liberals, especially around here, are fixated with trying to get personal information about forum members around here. Do I care where they live or what they do for a living? Where they grew up, well in their case, not grow up, but the place they lived as a child? Their email address? Their phone number? Not in the least, but this is your typical liberal frame of mind. If can´t win the argument, then resort to trying to bully people like the unions do and make personal attacks by people and their families. And then get mad and offended, not to mention deny when they get called on doing such things. Yet, want everyone to "know" how smart they are while constantly living on the land of hypocrisy and double standards on nearly every issue. I am so glad I do not have to be around any of these people in person, nor do I have any interest in what they look like, what they do, or anything about them really. So many I consider disgusting filth, so last thing I want to know is more about them. If that hurts people´s feelings, oh well. But notice I didn´t use certain posters´names, which I could have, but again, this is the usual tactic of your "well reasoned, and grown up" liberal. Ugh.

[That One Guy]

I've seen the 500 lb thing a lot lately, where'd it even start?

[alkemical]

I've seen the 500 lb thing a lot lately, where'd it even start?

Right here:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSXBh3EPeoK18Z7og4b5jkpf3oirYFyC tsm-W0TAon7bx5O37z5GA

[epicSocialism4tw]

I've seen the 500 lb thing a lot lately, where'd it even start?

It's just a personal attack by people who disagree with my politics. I'm not sure that its unique to me or if it references some inside joke or what.

I'm about 220 on my worst day. I'm pretty well above average height, so I'm doing okay. I could always use more cardio for sure.

[Br0nc0Buster]

Right here:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSXBh3EPeoK18Z7og4b5jkpf3oirYFyC tsm-W0TAon7bx5O37z5GA

add in that to the fact his only form of "physical activity" is jerking off, and well that is not a recipe for physical fitness

I guess everything really is bigger in Texas, including the fat asses

[TonyR]

I'm pretty well above average height...

For a human or a troll?

[Bronco Vixen]

Seems as though the liberals, especially around here, are fixated with trying to get personal information about forum members around here. Do I care where they live or what they do for a living? Where they grew up, well in their case, not grow up, but the place they lived as a child? Their email address? Their phone number? Not in the least, but this is your typical liberal frame of mind. If can´t win the argument, then resort to trying to bully people like the unions do and make personal attacks by people and their families. And then get mad and offended, not to mention deny when they get called on doing such things. Yet, want everyone to "know" how smart they are while constantly living on the land of hypocrisy and double standards on nearly every issue. I am so glad I do not have to be around any of these people in person, nor do I have any interest in what they look like, what they do, or anything about them really. So many I consider disgusting filth, so last thing I want to know is more about them. If that hurts people´s feelings, oh well. But notice I didn´t use certain posters´names, which I could have, but again, this is the usual tactic of your "well reasoned, and grown up" liberal. Ugh.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a significant correlation with such behavior and one's political preference as it obviously cuts across political parties, religions, no religion, sex, age, ethnicity, SES etc.

Instead I would hypothesize more of an association with certain personality characteristics like insecurity, level of anger/bitterness/resentment at the world, and basic unhappiness with one's own lot in life.

[epicSocialism4tw]

For a human or a troll?

Sasquatch.

[TailgateNut]

Sasquatch.


He wasn't asking about comparisons in mental capacity.

[Br0nc0Buster]

Well at least we know who the "biggest" troll is

[epicSocialism4tw]

Well at least we know who the "biggest" troll is

Apparently its "BroncoBuster"...turning the conversation into one of 500 pounders and masturbation like any good pre-teen would.

[Garcia Bronco]

add in that to the fact his only form of "physical activity" is jerking off, and well that is not a recipe for physical fitness



Speak for yourself. :P

[epicSocialism4tw]

He wasn't asking about comparisons in mental capacity.

I wasn't aware that "sasquatch mental capacity" was a qualitative thing.

They must be pretty dang brilliant if they live all over the world in populated countries and have never been seen. Ha!

[Br0nc0Buster]

Speak for yourself. :P

well i do other things as well

[TailgateNut]

I wasn't aware that "sasquatch mental capacity" was a qualitative thing.

They must be pretty dang brilliant if they live all over the world in populated countries and have never been seen. Ha!

ROFL!

Texanese?

[That One Guy]

ROFL!

Texanese?

LOL

It's very much a word, TGN...

qual·i·ta·tive
   [kwol-i-tey-tiv] Show IPA
–adjective
pertaining to or concerned with quality or qualities.

[Blueflame]

Seems as though the liberals, especially around here, are fixated with trying to get personal information about forum members around here. Do I care where they live or what they do for a living? Where they grew up, well in their case, not grow up, but the place they lived as a child? Their email address? Their phone number? Not in the least, but this is your typical liberal frame of mind. If can´t win the argument, then resort to trying to bully people like the unions do and make personal attacks by people and their families. And then get mad and offended, not to mention deny when they get called on doing such things. Yet, want everyone to "know" how smart they are while constantly living on the land of hypocrisy and double standards on nearly every issue. I am so glad I do not have to be around any of these people in person, nor do I have any interest in what they look like, what they do, or anything about them really. So many I consider disgusting filth, so last thing I want to know is more about them. If that hurts people´s feelings, oh well. But notice I didn´t use certain posters´names, which I could have, but again, this is the usual tactic of your "well reasoned, and grown up" liberal. Ugh.

It's truly shocking to me just how much personal information is out there in cyberspace, available to anyone who knows one's first and last name + even just the state where one lives. Don't believe me? Go to spokeo.com and type in your own name. I was appalled... hell, the listing included a picture of my house (needless to say, I "opted out" and deleted the entry... but they include you without your permission and you have to complain to get your info taken off).

[epicSocialism4tw]

ROFL!

Texanese?

Oops! Ha!

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Oops! Ha!

(What epicFAIL's dad said to his mom.)