T1B

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:03 am**

mvscal wrote:
rozy wrote:If ID is discredited crap then how can SCIENCE explain how all of the IDer's stuff works? Is that not a fair question based on the previous posts?
IDers "stuff" doesn't work. It's all nonsense.

Atheism is still a contradiction. What's your point?

You have yet to PM me your address. What's the holdup, my friend?

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:03 am**

War Wagon wrote:And Lab Rat? For someone who professes to be a practicing Christian, you sure do argue most vocifeously against anyone who displays such faith, and you seem to want to do anything but "leave it at that". It's like a self-asskicking that contradicts itself.

What's up with that?

I am utterly opposed to the misuse of "scientific evidence" with regard to questions of God. It doesn't make Christians more devout or holy when they distort or misrepresent scientific evidence or arguments to "support" their position, as ID does. ID is bad theology (a "God of the gaps" argument) and is stunningly bad 'science." Arguing against intellectual dishonesty doesn't make me an atheist.

battery chucka' one wrote:Mike, while I have no problems with, as my wife calls it, 'microevolution' (bacteria, insects, minor evolution within a species, such as when children of immigrants grow a foot taller than their parents due to changes in diet and environment), what I have issues with is when people make huge leaps and, all of a sudden, cats evolved from dogs (just a crazy example but, let's be honest, if one was going to be the more evolved, it would be cats).

The same processes that cause what you refer to as microevolution lead to macroevolution. This "all of a sudden" concept doesn't happen - at least not in the time scale you're thinking of. One of the favorite straw man claims I deal with is "well, according to Darwin, out of a batch of chimps, all of a sudden a human baby is born?!?!" Neither Darwin nor any other biologist claims that natural selection works that way. The mutations that accumulate do so slowly and randomly (with randomly often being at a calculable rate - random just means we can't predict precisely the moment it'll happen). Over geological time, evolution occurs quickly. In human perception of time, it occurs slowly.

battery chucka' one wrote:Evolution doesn't just 'happen'. Survival of the fittest doesn't just 'happen'.

Mutation occurs randomly, possibly causing the appearance of traits that confer slight advantages or disadvantages in an environment. I say "possibly", because some mutations are "silent" (the base code changing may still code for the same amino acid due to redundancy of the genetic code). The slight advantages or disadvantages are selected for through competition in the environment. Those with more advantages - maybe greater intelligence that allows tool-building, or upright posture to better see predators or prey- tend to survive better and produce offspring that tend to inherit those more favorable traits.

That's all there is to it.

battery chucka' one wrote:Why would humans ever be considered in any way more physically evolved than a primate? Like you said, a chimp could tear a human being asunder.

You put too much stock in the physical side and not enough in the mental. We are individually and collectively smarter than chimps. We design and use tools and exhibit better and quicker problem-solving behavior. We discovered how to make better weapons, how to do agriculture, etc. Scoreboard the physically weaker primates (us).

battery chucka' one wrote:Except with mice and other tiny creatures, I believe that four legs always beats two when it comes to the second option of the whole 'fight or flight'. The first wild predator that came along would kill the two legged creature. I understand that probably, as my teacher referred to the mutant, 'upright ape' would be both two and four legged but still, why would two EVER be better (and therefore be considered 'evolved')? Also, though two could probably still procreate with the flock, four would always win the rivalry for mates. Just doesn't make much sense to me. Way too much to 'just happen', in my opinion.

You're too wrapped up in this whole "more evolved = better" notion which is completely erroneous. Evolution does NOT make better creatures. It makes creatures better adapted to where/when it lives. If a brainless slug is better adapted to living in a specific locale than a human (better adapted to the food or atmosphere, e.g.), than the slug "wins."

All of this arguing over science doesn't help the cause of Christianity. Science is neutral on the issue - it is not the enemy of Christianity, nor can/should it be enlisted to "prove" or "provide evidence for" it.

I agree with poptart:

poptart wrote:Ultimately the Holy Spirit moves a man's heart to recognize, as Peter did in Matthew 16:16, that Jesus is the Christ.

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:11 pm**

You described evolution as 'random'. I didn't know that science was open to events that happeded due to 'randomness'. Could you please site some examples where the evolution was either 'random' or involved a species 'trading down' and becoming inferior (as in the example of the brainless slug) in order to better adapt to the environment? Thanks.

And, again, perhaps there wouldn't be so many trying to use science to prove God if there weren't so many trying to use it to prove that he doesn't exist. Why no smacking of your anti-God colleagues, if you disagree with them on this?

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:49 pm**

battery chucka' one wrote:You described evolution as 'random'.

No.

I described MUTATION as random.

As I specifically stated earlier, the forces of selection are most definitely NOT random.

Even the term "random" bears explanation. Due to errors in DNA replication, misreading during the transcription of DNA to RNA and/or the translating of the RNA code to protein, mistakes are made. We know many of the enzymes involved in these processes and the error rates for many of those enzymes. We also know the probabilities of certain environmental factors to increase mutation rates/error rates. But knowing the percentages doesn't tell you exactly which base will "flip" to another (THAT is the randomness), it just tells you that over X amount of time, that Y amount of mutations should occur. This is useful in that it gives us a "genetic clock" that predicts when, over generational time, we should see more mutations and possible new traits. We've been able to use the genetic clock to accurately create evolutionary trees, which have been corroborated with fossil evidence (as well as with other biochemical evidence).

battery chucka' one wrote:I didn't know that science was open to events that happeded due to 'randomness'.

Yep. There's even something called "chaos theory." But that's physics. And I hate physics.

battery chucka' one wrote:Could you please site some examples where the evolution was either 'random' or involved a species 'trading down' and becoming inferior (as in the example of the brainless slug) in order to better adapt to the environment? Thanks.

Let go of the "inferior" tag. Bigger, faster, stronger...doesn't necessarily mean "better organism," especially if smaller, smarter is an option.

Once again - evolution does not make "better" organisms - it makes better ADAPTED organisms (better adapted as defined to that specific environment). Change the environment, and organisms that seemed to be better adapted no longer are "king"....for example, the dinosaurs. The environment changed dramatically (possibly due to the oft-cited metero/asteroid, possibly due to volcanic eruptions, possibly both), and soon (in geological terms), the dinosaurs who had ruled the Earth for millions of years ceased to be the most dominant animal. The age of mammals began.

As far as species losing structures...how 'bout the fact that snakes' ancestors used to have legs but lost them? We still find vestigial leg bones on many species. Or how about the fact that the ancestors of whales were four-legged land dwellers who then went back to the oceans, losing legs which turned into flippers (which still have "finger bones" in them).

battery chucka' one wrote:And, again, perhaps there wouldn't be so many trying to use science to prove God if there weren't so many trying to use it to prove that he doesn't exist.

With the notable exception of Richard Dawkins (who AFAIK has never posted here...), I am aware of very few people, especially scientists, who try to use science to "prove" that God doesn't exist. Even mvscal hasn't done so.

The logical burden of proof in this (and ANY) argument is on the individuals making the POSITIVE existential statement. That is how it's done, because it is logically near-impossible most times to "prove" a negative. If someone contends that Bigfoot exists, the burden of proof is on THEM, not on the people who argue that he does not exist. Why? All that the pro-Bigfoot folks have to do is find him (or enough convincing evidence of him). The anti-Bigfoot folks cannot prove that he does not exist, because it would require them to be omniscient and/or ominpresent, since they would have to see/be everywhere and say that Bigfoot isn't ANYWHERE. It is also not enough of a "proof" for Bigfoot's existence for the "pro" folks to point out the weakness of the "anti's" position. The burden is ALWAYS on those making the positive existential claim. Always.

battery chucka' one wrote:Why no smacking of your anti-God colleagues, if you disagree with them on this?

Because they're not the ones trying to use faulty logic and data to support their side. I agree with you, pop, and rozy regarding the existence of God and the divinity of Christ. I disagree with you (and all Christians) who try to bend and twist science (due to deliberate deception, or, in your case through an incomplete understanding of the science cited) to attempt to defend "our" side. It doesn't help Christianity's case to attack science or to distort it, and it makes non-believers even less likely to listen to any legitimate points we might make.

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:52 pm**

I guess I don’t see where a belief in Christianity precludes a belief in evolution. Maybe evolution was God’s method of creating man. Yes, Genesis describes earth as being created in six days, but I believe it is somewhere in Psalms where the bible says 1,000 years are like a day in God’s sight. Or maybe 10,000 years. Or maybe 1,000,000 years.

And bco has to be the worst spokesman I’ve ever come across for Christianity. Just horrible.

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:23 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:I guess I don’t see where a belief in Christianity precludes a belief in evolution.

It doesn't. And a whole bunch of religious groups agree with us. I also like the fact that one of the smartest folks in biology, Ken Miller (who also co-wrote the text I use) is a devout Christian and also doesn't believe that evolution and religion are incompatible.

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:27 pm**

The way that life is ordered on the planet - in every minute detail - over the course of billions of years, arising in all likelihood from a cloud of gas...well, that's pretty much unfathomable to me. That there is your best "argument" for the existence of God.

Of course, IMO the Bible is probably the worst argument for the existence of God. What supreme being would stand to be spoken for so poorly?

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:48 pm**

PSUFAN wrote:The way that life is ordered on the planet - in every minute detail - over the course of billions of years, arising in all likelihood from a cloud of gas...well, that's pretty much unfathomable to me. That there is your best "argument" for the existence of God.

Of course, IMO the Bible is probably the worst argument for the existence of God. What supreme being would stand to be spoken for so poorly?

That the Bible is full of more contradictions than an Alberto Gonzalez deposition can mean only one thing...

GOD IS A REPLUBLICAN

sin

Dittotards

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:43 pm**

BSmack wrote:
PSUFAN wrote:The way that life is ordered on the planet - in every minute detail - over the course of billions of years, arising in all likelihood from a cloud of gas...well, that's pretty much unfathomable to me. That there is your best "argument" for the existence of God.

Of course, IMO the Bible is probably the worst argument for the existence of God. What supreme being would stand to be spoken for so poorly?
That the Bible is full of more contradictions than a John Kerry campaign can mean only one thing...

GOD IS A DEMOCRAT

sin

Commietards

fixxed

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:18 pm**

SunCoastSooner wrote:
That the Bible is full of more contradictions than a John Kerry campaign can mean only one thing...

GOD IS A DEMOCRAT

sin

Commietards
fixxed

Commies don't dig Democrats you fucking retard.

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:24 pm**

god damned right

Posted: **Tue Jul 24, 2007 2:55 am**

battery chucka' one wrote:I agree that faith requires some evidence. The evidence leads you to the faith.

That's the difference between science and faith, densa.

Faith obviously requires "some evidence."

Science doesn't require "evidence leads to faith." Bad teachers aside, science simply doesn't work that way, you fucking moron. It's NOT a BELIEF SYSTEM, but a WAY OF DESCRIBING THE WORLD (and universe).

That's why there's no conflict, imo, nor Mike's, with science and religion. Religion deals with the SUPERNATURAL, the paranormal, the "spirit"

Get it?

Btw, try reading Mike's Dover decision thread next time, before embarking on this quest for the ultimate ass-kicking in two completely different spheres of thought.

Posted: **Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:57 am**

RadioFan wrote:
battery chucka' one wrote:I agree that faith requires some evidence. The evidence leads you to the faith.
That's the difference between science and faith, densa.

Faith obviously requires "some evidence."

Science doesn't require "evidence leads to faith." Bad teachers aside, science simply doesn't work that way, you fucking moron. It's NOT a BELIEF SYSTEM, but a WAY OF DESCRIBING THE WORLD (and universe).

That's why there's no conflict, imo, nor Mike's, with science and religion. Religion deals with the SUPERNATURAL, the paranormal, the "spirit"

Get it?

Btw, try reading Mike's Dover decision thread next time, before embarking on this quest for the ultimate ass-kicking in two completely different spheres of thought.

How was the sensitivity training?

Now prove to me, 100%, without any question, that macro evolution has taken place.

Then, prove to me, 100%, that the world is several billion years old.

Finally, prove to me, 100%, how the earth was created.

Btw, for these, I only want you answering and I'll be needing actual witnesses and/or historic ancient writings that prove either of these 100%. Perhaps a half evolved human. No evidence will be accepted, mind you. I want proof. Thanks in advance.

Posted: **Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:24 am**

battery chucka' one wrote:Perhaps a half evolved human.

The jokes are starting to write themselves.

Posted: **Tue Jul 24, 2007 6:22 am**

battery chucka' one wrote:Now prove to me, 100%, without any question

battery chucka' one wrote:Then, prove to me, 100%

battery chucka' one wrote:Finally, prove to me, 100%, how

With this thing called "peer review," science is more about DISPROVING than PROVING.

Prove to me that you aren't a fucking moron. Well, never mind. Humor me.

You can start by addressing any one of about a dozen points which have made you, as an individual poster -- not YOU as a Christian, nor YOU as a Muslim nor even YOU as a UFO LTS_TRN2, but you as a poster, out to be an absolute dumbfuck.

I won't hold my breath.

But, by all means, go on with your epic blasts along the lines of "bigot" and "racist," though it's become fairly obvious even mentioning the name of a federal law is, in your, mind, "ammunition." I'd say pathetic, only that would give truely pathetic, beaten-down posters disrespect. Given that all you have left is "prove to me," I'd say you're not done yet.

Prove it. Type in tongues if you have to.

I know you can prove it, bco. Don't let down now.

Posted: **Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:36 am**

RadioFan wrote:Type in tongues if you have to.

Posted: **Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:18 pm**

RadioFan wrote:
battery chucka' one wrote:Now prove to me, 100%, without any question

battery chucka' one wrote:Then, prove to me, 100%

battery chucka' one wrote:Finally, prove to me, 100%, how
With this thing called "peer review," science is more about DISPROVING than PROVING.

Prove to me that you aren't a fucking moron. Well, never mind. Humor me.

You can start by addressing any one of about a dozen points which have made you, as an individual poster -- not YOU as a Christian, nor YOU as a Muslim nor even YOU as a UFO LTS_TRN2, but you as a poster, out to be an absolute dumbfuck.

I won't hold my breath.

But, by all means, go on with your epic blasts along the lines of "bigot" and "racist," though it's become fairly obvious even mentioning the name of a federal law is, in your, mind, "ammunition." I'd say pathetic, only that would give truely pathetic, beaten-down posters disrespect. Given that all you have left is "prove to me," I'd say you're not done yet.

Prove it. Type in tongues if you have to.

I know you can prove it, bco. Don't let down now.

Bigot, you haven't proven any of that to me. Therefore, by your rationale, in all stated cases, the opposite shall be held as proven fact. Have a nice day.

Posted: **Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:58 pm**

A few pages and a few hundred plungerings ago, I asked you, BCO, to explain this "bigot" bullshit that you're clacking out. I just wanted to renew that request. Think of it as an opportunity to temporarily stave off some of the further asskickings that are, amazingly, still looming large in this thread.

Posted: **Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:20 pm**

On about day 136 of the Simpson trial, O.J. lawyer Peter Neufeld stood up, and in all seriousness of face, spent 3 or 4 minutes presenting a Dole Banana sticker found in the street near the killings as an article of defense evidence.

Posted: **Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:40 pm**

RadioFan wrote:
battery chucka' one wrote:Now prove to me, 100%, without any question

battery chucka' one wrote:Then, prove to me, 100%

battery chucka' one wrote:Finally, prove to me, 100%, how
With this thing called "peer review," science is more about DISPROVING than PROVING.

Prove to me that you aren't a fucking moron. Well, never mind. Humor me.

You can start by addressing any one of about a dozen points which have made you, as an individual poster -- not YOU as a Christian, nor YOU as a Muslim nor even YOU as a UFO LTS_TRN2, but you as a poster, out to be an absolute dumbfuck.

I won't hold my breath.

But, by all means, go on with your epic blasts along the lines of "bigot" and "racist," though it's become fairly obvious even mentioning the name of a federal law is, in your, mind, "ammunition." I'd say pathetic, only that would give truely pathetic, beaten-down posters disrespect. Given that all you have left is "prove to me," I'd say you're not done yet.

Prove it. Type in tongues if you have to.

I know you can prove it, bco. Don't let down now.

Let me back up a bit, Radio. Perhaps I was a bit rash in calling you a bigot so quickly. If so, then please allow me to apologize and beg your forgiveness.

Now that that's behind us, I have several questions for you, as one who has allegedly done a great deal of research on the Cherokee nation:

Who is Chad Smith?

In what industry is Cherokee Nation Enterprises involved?

What is ITEC and why are the Cherokee important with regards?

What is gadugi?

That is all.

Posted: **Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:23 pm**

Annnnd, going back to the beginning...

battery chucka' one wrote:Okay, to answer your question, atheism is a contradiction in and of itself. It's a belief in nothing superior to human beings.

atheism

a·the·ism

noun
Definition:

unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities

And this is where you've been wrong since word one. Atheism is NOT a contradiction. It IS a NON-belief in God, god or any other deity. Dictionary out front should have told ya'.

Belief in nothing is a contradiction. Go ahead, if you have a better definition.

How can you possibly define not believing in God as belief in nothing? That is a ridiculous argument. If someone chooses not to believe in a deity, it simply means that they do not believe in a deity. They don't ascribe to fairy stories.

Trying to equivicate that to a belief in an empty void is asinine.

Posted: **Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:52 pm**

Are Fairy Stories something that gay atheists tell their kids before they go to bed?

Posted: **Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:24 pm**

Messageboards imitating life...

Nacho = Michael Vick

BCO = Tim Donaghy

The former are still tards, but someone came along to make them look like that much less of a tard.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 1:02 am**

battery chucka' one wrote:Who is Chad Smith?

He's principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, recently re-elected to his third four-year term. He won by about a 60 percent margin, but the 40 percent who voted against him generally can't stand him. He's a political lightning rod within the Nation, but usually gets his way on major issues. Do a Google search on "freedmen" if you don't believe me.

In what industry is Cherokee Nation Enterprises involved?

Several, most of it invested with gaming revenue, given that the tribe makes millions from places like the Cherokee Casino and Resort, in Catoosa, just outside of Tulsa.

What is ITEC and why are the Cherokee important with regards?

It's one of several inter-tribal councils. Like a lot of things, political winds determine what's "important" with it.

What is gadugi?

I have no idea. If it's a Cherokee word, I don't speak nor read the language.

My point in bringing up the Cherokees was to refute your ridiculous notion that they are somehow "doing great." Do you have any idea how many of them are on the federal dole? The gaming has helped some Cherokees, but the notion that somehow, after being shafted by the government, they just waltzed on into Oklahoma and are some sort of huge success story is ludicrous.

Btw, hate to break this to you, but not all Cherokees have "accepted God." And most that I have met, given how shitty they've been treated over the centuries, are fairly open-minded about others' beliefs. Unlike certain tard posters in here.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 1:03 am**

battery chucka' one wrote:Nobody will ever prove nor disprove God.

By the very notion Risa is still breathing, she's singlehandedly proven there is no God.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 1:09 am**

Risa is only a shitty poster because she hasn't accepted God.

-- bctard

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 1:15 am**

Nacho wrote:Are Fairy Stories something that gay atheists tell their kids before they go to bed?

Gay atheists have kids?

I'm sure Barnes and Noble is investing heavily in that market.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 1:38 am**

RadioFan wrote:
battery chucka' one wrote:Who is Chad Smith?
He's principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, recently re-elected to his third four-year term. He won by about a 60 percent margin, but the 40 percent who voted against him generally can't stand him. He's a political lightning rod within the Nation, but usually gets his way on major issues. Do a Google search on "freedmen" if you don't believe me.

In what industry is Cherokee Nation Enterprises involved?
Several, most of it invested with gaming revenue, given that the tribe makes millions from places like the Cherokee Casino and Resort, in Catoosa, just outside of Tulsa.

What is ITEC and why are the Cherokee important with regards?
It's one of several inter-tribal councils. Like a lot of things, political winds determine what's "important" with it.

What is gadugi?
I have no idea. If it's a Cherokee word, I don't speak nor read the language.

My point in bringing up the Cherokees was to refute your ridiculous notion that they are somehow "doing great." Do you have any idea how many of them are on the federal dole? The gaming has helped some Cherokees, but the notion that somehow, after being shafted by the government, they just waltzed on into Oklahoma and are some sort of huge success story is ludicrous.

Btw, hate to break this to you, but not all Cherokees have "accepted God." And most that I have met, given how shitty they've been treated over the centuries, are fairly open-minded about others' beliefs. Unlike certain tard posters in here.

I don't mean that all Cherokees have accepted God. I meant that the nation had. Their leaders had. It was one of the conditions for which they could stay in Georgia. One more reason why they got the short end of the stick by our govt. As with all nations, not all accepted, but they did what they were asked.

Whose side is Smith on? That of the blacks descended from slaves or that of Cherokee trying to keep them from being nation members? Why the disdain from the 40%? What's he doing that they don't like?

Whoops, didn't mean Cherokee Nations Enterprises. I meant to ask you what Cherokee Nation Industries is.

Gadugi is the practice of self reliance in the Cherokee Nation (in other words, NOT being reliant on the United States).

Finally, what did Mr. Dawes report finding when he came to Oklahoma in the 1800's? Was his report back to Washington accurate?

Thanks again.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 1:49 am**

Oh, wow. This bloodbath makes the Rumplewife Chronicles seem like foam-padded pillow fights.

BCO - When the people who inherently agree with you cleanse you down to nothing but plain idiocy, it's time to retire the jersey.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 1:54 am**

battery chucka' one wrote:I don't mean that all Cherokees have accepted God. I meant that the nation had. Their leaders had. It was one of the conditions for which they could stay in Georgia. One more reason why they got the short end of the stick by our govt. As with all nations, not all accepted, but they did what they were asked.

They were "asked?"

You're kidding, right?

Whose side is Smith on? That of the blacks descended from slaves or that of Cherokee trying to keep them from being nation members? Why the disdain from the 40%? What's he doing that they don't like?

His "side" is the argument of sovereignty. He pushed for the tribal-wide referendum to kick the freedmen decendants off the rolls, and strip them of tribal rights, even though the Cherokees owned slaves. His argument is that one should have a blood requirement to be a member of the Cherokee tribe. His argument also goes along the lines of "We're a tribe, and we're a democracy, and we can do whatever the fuck the voters tell us to do, once they've been asked to vote and have done so."

Whoops, didn't mean Cherokee Nations Enterprises. I meant to ask you what Cherokee Nation Industries is.

CNI is a division of CNE.

Finally, what did Mr. Dawes report finding when he came to Oklahoma in the 1800's? Was his report back to Washington accurate?

It doesn't matter if it's accurate. It's part of federal law. It's also at the heart of the freedmen issue, because freedmen were counted as Cherokees at the time.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:08 am**

RadioFan wrote:
battery chucka' one wrote:I don't mean that all Cherokees have accepted God. I meant that the nation had. Their leaders had. It was one of the conditions for which they could stay in Georgia. One more reason why they got the short end of the stick by our govt. As with all nations, not all accepted, but they did what they were asked.
They were "asked?"

You're kidding, right?

Weren't they given a list of requirements to keep their land that they satisfied 100%? Isn't that part of why they won their supreme court case?

Whose side is Smith on? That of the blacks descended from slaves or that of Cherokee trying to keep them from being nation members? Why the disdain from the 40%? What's he doing that they don't like?
His "side" is the argument of sovereignty. He pushed for the tribal-wide referendum to kick the freedmen decendants off the rolls, and strip them of tribal rights, even though the Cherokees owned slaves. His argument is that one should have a blood requirement to be a member of the Cherokee tribe. His argument also goes along the lines of "We're a tribe, and we're a democracy, and we can do whatever the fuck the voters tell us to do, once they've been asked to vote and have done so."

Whoops, didn't mean Cherokee Nations Enterprises. I meant to ask you what Cherokee Nation Industries is.
CNI is a division of CNE.

But isn't CNI a defense contractor?

Finally, what did Mr. Dawes report finding when he came to Oklahoma in the 1800's? Was his report back to Washington accurate?
It doesn't matter if it's accurate. It's part of federal law. It's also at the heart of the freedmen issue, because freedmen were counted as Cherokees at the time.

Actually, it does matter if it's accurate as it echoes what I said about their nation's current condition, while the report took place in the 1800's in Oklahoma, decades after the Trail of Tears.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:11 am**

Serious theological question for BCO --

What's in God's name possessed you to think changing the subject would spareth you the rod that's currently occupying your colon?

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:39 am**

bco, get a grip on the bb code here.

Ancient Cherokee saying: The Gods don't like laziness.

Either you are too stupid, or too lazy to manage it. Isn't there a similar passage in the Bible about sloth?

You might want to reread that particular passage before quoting mine, and everybody else's entire fucking post ... again, when trying to make a point in here.

To the gallary (and ucant): o/u is 50 percent. Place your bets at the Cherokee Casino.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:02 am**

BCO,

When you finally eject from this thread and the rectal bleeding stops, you are to count off seven days for your ceremonial cleansing; you must wash your clothes and bathe yourself with fresh water, and you will be clean. On the eighth day you must take two doves or two young pigeons and come before the LORD to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and give them to the priest. The priest is to sacrifice them, the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement before the LORD for you because of your discharge.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:20 am**

RadioFan wrote:bco, get a grip on the bb code here.

Ancient Cherokee saying: The Gods don't like laziness.

Either you are too stupid, or too lazy to manage it. Isn't there a similar passage in the Bible about sloth?

You might want to reread that particular passage before quoting mine, and everybody else's entire fucking post ... again, when trying to make a point in here.

To the gallary (and ucant): o/u is 50 percent. Place your bets at the Cherokee Casino.

Come on, Radio. I'm trying to talk to you logically about the Cherokee people. Why can't you speak logically and just answer the points I've brought up? Is it that hard? Let me come from another direction:

Name for me, if you will, a top Bolivian defense contractor. What about one from Mozambique? Andorra?

Now please, if you would, answer the logical points I've brought up or say that you can't.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:22 am**

battery chucka' one wrote:Name for me, if you will, a top Bolivian defense contractor. What about one from Mozambique? Andorra?

This has what to do with science, atheism, theology, or anything else?

Your attempted diversion is beyond pathetic.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:28 am**

Dinsdale wrote:
battery chucka' one wrote:Name for me, if you will, a top Bolivian defense contractor. What about one from Mozambique? Andorra?
This has what to do with science, atheism, theology, or anything else?

Your attempted diversion is beyond pathetic.

Din-sun. The corner. Adults are speaking. That means it's time for you to be seen and not heard. We'll get to you soon. Perhaps after the adults are done. Thanks.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 4:05 am**

You thought that was so fresh the first time, you decided to post it again?

I thought you "adults" were talking about atherism, theology, and science. You plungered yourself so fucking badly, that you decided to change subjects (and will assuredly get plungered on that, too, since it's what you do). This move was so unbelievably trabsparent, it's not going to hide the fact you were intelluctually bested by every single person who stopped into this thread.

And that's how you decided to save face?

Don't you have some horribly written, unreadable short story to work on or something (which was also quite a fucking plungering when you decided to out yourself as a fucking moron with that debacle).

No wonder you're a thumper -- you're fucking worthless, and you need the fairy tales to make yourself feel like a part of something.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 4:41 am**

battery chucka' one wrote:Come on, Radio. I'm trying to talk to you logically about the Cherokee people. Why can't you speak logically and just answer the points I've brought up? Is it that hard?

No harder than mastering the bb code in here.

Still waiting for that miracle.

I'll answer your "questions" once you start asking, without quoting.

Prove it.

Is it that hard?

Btw, I had the over. The Cherokees just lost $5. I should have bet $50,000 on your sorry ass. You are, beyond a doubt, the most pathetic "poster," -- and I use that term loosely, given your "skills" here -- that I've ever wasted my time with, this side of Risa.

You make trolls.net seem impressive with your "takes."

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 1:33 pm**

BCO wrote:Whoops

yep.

T1B

There is this gay athiest at work...