T1B

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2010 3:12 am**

They use the blood of babies as lube dumbfuck

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2010 3:17 am**

okay i will start another thread to deal with this.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2010 3:35 am**

Both threads will show up in the CIA's search so it's no big deal.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2010 4:01 am**

Van wrote:pop, do you have even the slightest notion as to how bat shit insane you sound?

Many of history's most famous and renowned individuals were/are Christian, Van.

I'm in good company and I sleep very well at night.

Get in the game.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2010 4:25 am**

Don't forget the latest determination that some human beings left Africa and mated with Neanderthals - leaving the only true Human Beings in Africa.

And mutant less than humans throughout Europe and Asia. Don't forget that part, it's critical to the future.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2010 4:26 am**

Jsc, not to be funny, but I'm curious what "ordained" refers to.

Jsc wrote:But that doesn't mean that I believe there ever was a talking snake or that man has only been around for 6000 years.

Good, yes, exactly.

Nobody has to believe those things to be a Christian.

"Put there by satan" etc., is utter nonsense, imo.
No, I don't believe that.

Jsc, I've seen the stories and dates such as you posted.
I'm well aware of them.

If you read an article such as that, and step back a little from it, ... look at the amount of fantasy involved in it.
Look at the first paragraph.

Children meandered around their parents’ ankles.
A man, likely a hunter, dashed through the mud.
Somebody dragged a dead animal along the shores of a lake.

It's B.S.

They don't know so much of what they write about.

I'm not sold on the ages they ascribe to things, no.

If that troubles you, just view me as a leper and keep your distance.

We can still be fliends.

88 wrote:What I don't completely understand is how, without evolutionary influences on the offspring, we could end up with different races.

Search - human races, Bible - you'll find an explanation.

I'm tired, too.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2010 4:29 am**

pop, there's your garden variety Christian, then there's bat shit crazy, park-your-brain-at-the-door, insane Christian.

Remember, you're the who says accepted, provable science lacks common sense while polar pears living on wooden boats with crocodiles seems perfectly reasonable, so guess which type of Christian you appear to be?

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2010 4:31 am**

Tom In VA wrote:Don't forget the latest determination that some human beings left Africa and mated with Neanderthals - leaving the only true Human Beings in Africa.

And mutant less than humans throughout Europe and Asia. Don't forget that part, it's critical to the future.

Now you're simply being a dick.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2010 4:34 am**

Van wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:Don't forget the latest determination that some human beings left Africa and mated with Neanderthals - leaving the only true Human Beings in Africa.

And mutant less than humans throughout Europe and Asia. Don't forget that part, it's critical to the future.
Now you're simply being a dick.

Back off buddy. I'm following Science.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/scien ... rthal.html

Heretic.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2010 4:35 am**

As long as you still think we're all correct.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2010 4:36 am**

pop, there's your garden variety Christian, then there's bat shit crazy, park-your-brain-at-the-door, insane Christian.

What variety of Christian do you think the 12 apostles were?

You know, the guys who went to their horrific deaths in insistence that Jesus is the promised Christ of the Old Testament?

Do you think they believed the Old Testament?

Or were they "piss-weak" Christians?

Van, if I'm bat-shit nuts then don't waste your time on me.

I'm surely not here to press my view on you.

I'm just answering the questions put to me.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2010 4:40 am**

Van wrote:As long as you still think we're all correct.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2010 4:45 am**

pop, the apostles were people of their time. They didn't have the advantages of modern science. They still believed the Earth was flat, and they grew up believing in every other bizarre notion that we would think of today as bat shit crazy.

You aren't an apostle. You live 2,000 years later, and you're not a stupid, ignorant person, so you really ought to know better. You should have arrived at a point where you can separate the message from the fables, without needing to convince yourself that you need to buy all of it for any of it to be worthwhile.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2010 8:31 am**

Van wrote:They didn't have the advantages of modern science

Or disadvantages.

A man rose from the dead.
Does that seem scientific to you?

But the apostles knew that highly unscientific incident was true.

And further, the Man who rose from the dead spoke about Adam and Eve.
He spoke of Abel.
He spoke of Noah and the flood.
He spoke of Moses, who said, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."

Isaiah 40:8
The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever

That's where I come from.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2010 10:52 am**

88, I hesitate to post links because I do NOT want to play the "Yeah, but MY link says ..." game, and I won't be posting any others, but since you've expressed an interest in looking at the planet population issue -- as it relates to a post-flood viewpoint compared to a hundreds of thousands of years viewpoint, here are two links to see.

http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people

http://www.creationdefense.org/74.htm

I fully expect the usual suspects to shoot them down, and that is fine.

It's pretty interesting to look at and give some thought to, though.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2010 2:21 pm**

Faith is a bird that feels dawn breaking and sings while it is still dark.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2010 2:43 pm**

rhymenocerous wrote:
Faith is a bird that feels dawn breaking and sings while it is still dark.

I don't want to be a downer, but when I next see Dan Vogel's bird, it's not going to be in a singing mood when dawn breaks.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2010 11:56 pm**

PSUFAN wrote:
rhymenocerous wrote:
Faith is a bird that feels dawn breaking and sings while it is still dark.
I don't want to be a downer, but when I next see Dan Vogel's bird, it's not going to be in a singing mood when dawn breaks.

haha

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 2:51 am**

88 wrote:The primary problem with your argument is that until recently (the last 5,000 to 10,000 years or so), no one lived in a permanent settlement. The people were nomadic or hunter gatherers. They followed the food as it migrated on hoof or by the seasons. Until you had agriculture, you had no way to support (and no significant need for) a large family.

Yes, but why did agriculture take 190 thousand friggin' years to get going?

We're not talking about a few thousand years here.

190,000 years.

This is why I connected the "oddity" of man (who's said to have been around for 200,000 years) doing "nothing" up until the last 10,000 years (when agriculture is said to have begun) of his existence.

We are asked to believe that almost all of man's progress has occurred during just the last 1.5% of his time on the planet.
And he did almost completely diddly poo for 98.5% of his time on earth.

Why did it take him 190,000 years (that's a HELLUVA long time) to get going with agriculture?

And even before "official" man, a "lesser form" of man is said to have been around for hundereds of thousands of years, too.

And yet man couldn't manage to get up to speed and live in a permanant settlement until just the past few years (relatively speaking)??

Again, look at the RAPID advancement of man in your lifetime, and just the last 200 years.

But we are asked to believe that man had almost NO advancement for a SUCH A HUGE amount of time.

Oh well.

Genetics, land bridges, physical geography, dating ...

I could offer up my responses to the endless questions, but I just don't want to go into it.

I've done it before and it's pretty much fruitless.

Anyone reading this can do their own research into such things and come to their own conclusions.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 3:23 am**

poptart wrote:Why did it take him 190,000 years (that's a HELLUVA long time) to get going with agriculture?

We STILL have tribes that have not taken up agriculture. And that is 10,000 years after it was first introduced. Seriously, those people living in the Amazon who are hunting with blowguns don't have the first clue about farming.

Also, until the last 500 years, human history had been dominated by the priestly classes. Note the extreme amount of progress that has happened since we stopped using the Bible as a science text.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 3:27 am**

poptart wrote: Yes, but why did agriculture take 190 thousand friggin' years to get going?

Did you know how to order a Koren bride online from the womb? No. Some shit takes time for man to accomplish.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 3:37 am**

poptart wrote:Yes, but why did agriculture take 190 thousand friggin' years to get going?

Hey it looks just like a loaf of bread, doesn't it? Fortunately some of those stone age rock bangers were smarter than you because you are a fucking dumbshit. Straight up.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 3:51 am**

Pop,

I have had yer back. You know that. But in this thread..........

Damn, son.

We, as a race, have no Idea what happened 5000 years ago, let alone 190K.

Some Pyramids and stuff. Domestication of cats. Grain growing.

When I meet a neanderthal trying to kill a mastodon in France, I will let you know how mvscal is doing.

Other than that, let it go.

We are asked to believe that almost all of man's progress has occurred during just the last 1.5% of his time on the planet.

Yes, "we" not only believe that, but know that.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 3:57 am**

An Idiot wrote:We are asked to believe that almost all of man's progress has occurred during just the last 1.5% of his time on the planet.

Your belief is irrelevent. The facts speak for themselves quite clearly.

It is also a misnomer to speak of "Man's Progress" in broad, general terms as if it were some kind of collective effort. Human progress is due entirely to the genius of an infintesimally small handful of individuals scattered throughout history. Those individuals are the yeast that made the loaf rise.

The vast, overwhelming majority of humanity has consisted of cattle like you: credulous, dull, ignorant, unimaginative and shockingly stupid. The success you enjoy as member of humanity is the product of better and smarter men than you.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 4:02 am**

B wrote:We STILL have tribes that have not taken up agriculture. And that is 10,000 years after it was first introduced.

Sure, if you want to think it's been 10,000 years.

How about 190,000 years before ... any ... men could pull their head out of their @ss and get with it?

This is fun time.

Loaf of bread? lol

Yeah, imagine, dumbfucks couldn't figure out how to churn out Snickers Bars either.

It doesn't take much to figure out that things grow, what makes them grow, and how to manage it on a larger scale for the benefit of many.

Shrubber wrote:We, as a race, have no Idea what happened 5000 years ago, let 190K.

I agree.

I'm not the one pulling up the 200,000 year figure for man, and passing this off as fact, am I?

I'm saying I ... think ... man is 6,000 yrs old, and that I could be wrong about it.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 4:07 am**

mvscal wrote:[The vast, overwhelming majority of humanity has consisted of cattle like you: credulous, dull, ignorant, unimaginative and shockingly stupid.

If the vast majority are mostly on the same level, is their stupidity really that shocking? At some point the only people actually suprised by the stupidity of the masses are the shockingly stupid ones.

Or are you bringing the pretense back to this thread?

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 4:07 am**

poptart wrote:It doesn't take much to figure out that things grow, what makes them grow, and how to manage it on a larger scale for the benefit of many.

You sure about that? Why don't you go ahead and lay out all the preconditions for successful agriculture for us and then tell us again how simple it is. Assuming you even know anything about it (and you don't).

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 4:07 am**

Pop,

the question is - "Why do you care?"

It does not really matter, does it? 190K or 2 million years. We are here now. God made us, the end.

Let the timeline go.

And to answer MV - add up the posts in here for the past 10 years......that's enough to fertilize the entire planet for a century.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 4:09 am**

The irony of RtS telling someone to take a seat is dripping.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 4:11 am**

Irony is a guy that has Prince as an avatar, talking about irony.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 4:15 am**

R-Jack wrote:If the vast majority are mostly on the same level, is their stupidity really that shocking?

On how many different occasions have you told yourself, "That is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever read" on this board alone? Can you even count them all?

So, yes, I would argue that the stupidity of mankind in general has a nearly infinite capacity to shock and surprise.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 4:16 am**

Shrub, the question was put to ME.
I answered.
Follow up questions came.
I have continued to answer, and it's no problem as long as I have the time.

The only question I have asked in the thread is about man's supposed 190,000 years of doing "nothing" in comparison to his ----> HIGHLY ACCELERATED period of the last 10,000 years of doing ... everything.

The reaction of the masses here is not the least bit surprising to me.

Now Bri was crying before about how I don't engage, and about how he and the Rat sip Lattes and jerk it up on Farcebook these days, because it's better.

Take this as evidence that people DO engage here.

Those guys are girlish poodles.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 4:22 am**

Roger_the_Shrubber wrote:Irony is a guy that has Prince as an avatar, talking about irony.

Now you've done it.

Saladtosser is going to come in here and open up a can of whoop deadened nerves ass on you.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 4:23 am**

190k years ago.............man looked like this -

.....maybe.

That's a loooooong damn time ago, so who knows what man, if he was even man yet, was?

Again I say,...Who knows?

I don't and you don't. Let it go.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 4:24 am**

and open up a can of whoop deadened nerves ass on you.

Ummmm......

Well said?

"whoop deadened nerves ass"

The imagery is only topped by the complete lack of grammar, sentence structure, and stupidity.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 4:26 am**

The NBA wasn't around 190,000 yrs ago, you dumbshit.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 4:28 am**

Hey Pop!

Be nice.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 4:34 am**

poptart wrote:
B wrote:We STILL have tribes that have not taken up agriculture. And that is 10,000 years after it was first introduced.
Sure, if you want to think it's been 10,000 years. How about 190,000 years before ... any ... men could pull their head out of their @ss and get with it?

If you don't know what something is, it takes a hell of a lot longer to invent it. You know, like how to get a plant seed to germinate under the ground? That is not exactly something that is cut and dry, especially if you make your way in the world as a hunter/gatherer. The only reason YOU think it is easy is because you have the benefit of the last 10,000 years of human knowledge.

These humans were not just able to eke out an existence, they were able to organize hunts that felled Mammoths, they invented stone tools and discovered how to reproduce fire. I bet you if I took the average city dwelling feeb and put them on the side of Mount Chinksicle they couldn't learn that particular skill fast enough to save their lives.

This is fun time. Loaf of bread? lol

You're telling me that you could, without ever having seen or heard of bread or farming techniques, look at a stalk of wild wheat and derive that if you obtain the right wheat seeds, plant them in the right place, tend them for an indeterminate period of time, harvest the wheat, grind the wheat, and then use that ground up wheat as a foodstuff?

Are you fucking high? Any normal person would walk right past that skanky looking plant and pick one of the many pieces of fruit laying around what was then a very vibrant ecosystem in Africa. It was only after the population had recovered after the near extinction 75,000 years ago AND the climate of Africa changed radically coming out of the last ice age that the need for agriculture coincided with the available technology and language skills.

Yeah, imagine, dumbfucks couldn't figure out how to churn out Snickers Bars either.

It doesn't take much to figure out that things grow, what makes them grow, and how to manage it on a larger scale for the benefit of many.

Nope, just language skills, tools, fire... Nothing big or anything.

BTW, I notice that you completely ignored my comments about how the decline of the power of the priestly classes has coincided with the greatest advances in the history of civilization.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 4:41 am**

Those guys are girlish poodles.

RACK. That much can be agreed upon.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 4:56 am**

B, that's okay, because he also ignored my comment about how he answered his own question with his mention of the Industrial Revolution, followed by the harnessing of electricity.

He wanted to know why everything accelerated so quickly after millenia of relatively slow progress, and there it is, yet he completely glossed over it.

T1B

A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat

Re: A message from Lab Rat