Login or register


Last status update:
Gender: male
Age: 26
Date Signed Up:6/12/2009
Last Login:2/23/2014
Content Thumbs: 327 total,  418 ,  91
Comment Thumbs: 4611 total,  6146 ,  1535
Content Level Progress: 60% (6/10)
Level 32 Content: Peasant → Level 33 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 10% (10/100)
Level 246 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 247 Comments: Doinitrite
Content Views:17114
Times Content Favorited:48 times
Total Comments Made:1601
FJ Points:4097
Favorite Tags: tags (4) | dont (3) | read (3) | the (3) | You (3) | get (2) | stop (2)

latest user's comments

#279 - Sounds like someone is a bit butthurt. And actually, …  [+] (2 replies) 04/24/2012 on Religion in a nutshell +4
#328 - anon (04/24/2012) [-]
You obviously didn't read the post.

It says God impregnated Mary with himself, which is so wrong that the person who made the post is 12 and doesn't know shit about Christianity.
User avatar
#369 - Aiwatcher (04/24/2012) [-]
The Holy Trinity is the combined personalities of the three individual "Gods" of Christianity.
Jesus, the Lord, and the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is the human incarnation of the same God as "The Lord", as well as the Holy Spirit.
This is why "Jesus is God" is such a token phrase among fundamentalists.
Jesus IS the physical human incarnation of God, so yes, God did impregnate Mary with Jesus, hence with himself.

This shit is basic. Try to keep up.
#23 - KETCHUP IS A DIP, NOT A SAUCE.  [+] (2 replies) 04/16/2012 on limbo dancing -2
#34 - anon (04/16/2012) [-]
ketchup aka tomato SAUCE is a dip?

User avatar
#40 - Aiwatcher (04/16/2012) [-]
You put tomato sauce on spaghetti. Ketchup is not tomato sauce.
#646 - Lol to the people that think evolution requires faith. Evo…  [+] (14 replies) 04/14/2012 on William Lane Craig pwns... +2
User avatar
#697 - NerdforChrist (04/14/2012) [-]
Seriously not trying to troll you, im just curious on your opinion

Which came first, the ability or the drive to reproduce?
Which came first, The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, or the perfect mix of gasses to be breathed in?
Which came first, The muscles, the bones, the tendons, the ligaments?
Which came first, The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat food, the digestive juices or the bodies own resistence to its juices?
And my favorite and probably the most convincing, Which came first, the immune system or the need for it?
User avatar
#780 - Aiwatcher (04/14/2012) [-]
None of these are that hard, even without a knowledge of evolution.

Cellular organisms obviously had the ability to split long before they ever wanted to fuck.

Gases pretty obviously came before the creatures that breathe them. And the gases aren't "perfect". Oxygen is actually pretty shitty and corrosive. Life conformed to what it had, not the other way around.

Is it that hard to understand they all happened at the same time, starting simple then getting complex?

Obviously food came first, cellular organisms exist because they were able to utilize it. As I said, shit doesn't exist FOR life, life exists to utilize it.

Last one is a shitty and tireless argument. Of course the need for an immune system came first. Why the FUCK would it have evolved? Needless to say, basic creatures didn't NEED an immune system, so long as a few each generation survived. But ones that evolved basic ways to fight off infection and disease did better so naturally the immune system came later.

If you want some really god damn good reading, and a very clear explanation of how evolution works (and why each of your arguments are easy to blow out of the water), read The Blind Watchmaker (for the theories) and The Greatest Show on Earth (for clear evidence of it happening in real life).
#693 - rickmac (04/14/2012) [-]
1. Genetic limits
2. Cyclical change
3. Irreducible complexity
4. Molecular isolation
5. Nonviability of transitional forms, and
6. The lack of observation of macroevolution, thus disregarding the scientific theory
#696 - anon (04/14/2012) [-]
Oh look, the same old tired arguments that have been refuted time and time again.
#699 - rickmac (04/14/2012) [-]
ok, refute them.
#704 - anon (04/14/2012) [-]
How about you do 10 minutes of research, instead of asking random people on the internet? Wouldn't that be a little more honest?
#709 - rickmac (04/14/2012) [-]
i read about this shit for fun man, refute these points and youl see that i have indeed done my research
#718 - anon (04/14/2012) [-]
Really? Because those questions are not original and they're not yours. Copying arguments off of creationist websites isn't exactly research.
#725 - rickmac (04/14/2012) [-]
im in the middle of reading a chapter in book that made these points so they are fresh in my mind. Where i got them from doesnt matter, the fact that there is scientific evidence out there thats against your one-way-only "science" does. If its such bullshit then refute it and prove it to me instead of stating your butthurt opinion.
#739 - anon (04/14/2012) [-]
You haven't really explained any of the arguments, you've just stated their names, how do you expect me to refute them if I don't know anything about them?
#776 - rickmac (04/14/2012) [-]
goes to so that YOU dont have any research done...YOUR the one-sided one here

1.genetic limits-genetic limits are built into the basic types, ex,dog breeders always encounter genetic limits when they intelligently attempt to create new breeds of dogs. Dogs may vary incredibly, but despite the best attempts of intelligent dog breeders, dogs are still dogs. If intelligent scientists cannot break genetic barriers, why expect nonintelligent natural selection to do so?
2.Cyclical change-Changes are not directional towards the development of new life forms, as macroevolutionary theory requires,they just shift back and forth within a range. Ex,Darwin's finches adapted to correlate with the weather. Larger beaks helped with harder seeds during draughts and small beaks helped when wetter weather brought smaller seeds. The proportion consistently reversed itself to match the weather,no new life forms came into existence
3.Irreducible complexity-An irreducibly complex system composed of several well-matched interactive parts that contribute to the basic function,wherein the removal of any of these parts causes the system to fail. Being that all biological molecular machines are irreducibly complex,meaning that all parts must be completely formed, in the right places, in the right sizes,in operating order,at the same time, for it to function, thereforeany intermediates would be nonfunctional
4.Molecular isolation-It has often been said the close DNA relationship between humans and apes implies an ancestral relationship. This can easily be interpreted as a common ancestor OR a common creator. After all,if every living creature were distinct biochemically,a food chain would not even exist
5.Nonviablility of Transitional lifeforms-Natural selection creating NEW lifeforms is unlikely because transitional forms could not survive. Ex, if birds evolved gradually from reptiles,there would be a transition between scales and feathers, in which would not be able to survive in any habitat
User avatar
#785 - Aiwatcher (04/14/2012) [-]
1. Scientists obviously can't create mutations that are what drives evolution forward.
2. Evidence of genetic change regardless of whether a new form evolved.
3. Abiotic genesis is completely different from evolution. Tied directly, yes, but different. Regardless, certain biological machines such as the flagella motor have since been shown to break down and still be useful.
4. This is a poor defensive argument. Saying evidence can be construed in either way doesn't exactly help that much.
5. People who tout this argument are often ignorant of the fossil record. See dinosaurs such as the caudipteryx and archaeopteryx, both well documented dinosaurs that had both feathers and scales. Other forms of this argument are "Where are half formed wings?" or "Where are half formed legs" and so on and so forth, all of which have viable transitional fossils to show how they worked and that they indeed DID work in the wild.
#747 - anon (04/14/2012) [-]
Sorry, that statement wasn't completely accurate. i am familiar with some of the arguments. But some of them you need to explain Because I've never heard them.
#742 - anon (04/14/2012) [-]
Just stop.....we don't need your stupidity to spread.