Top | Newest First | Oldest First
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Pikachu @Bushranger Again, you may know science but you have no clue of it's interpretation. I've discussed that with you before with Newjaninev2 and you did receive them. Sure I can discuss ERVs with you and other science topics but you neglect the fact that science created by God for His good purpose. Therefore, you'd lose that challenge as well because you'd be preaching the lie of evolution and not the Truth of God.
View 44 more replies »
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Pikachu [quote]I'm assuming "your part" was to post something someone else had written and then tuck your tail between your legs and run when challenged to go further?[/quote]
Like I said, a big bag of wind. You couldn't be further from the truth. Man, you can't stand to lose, can you?
Like I said, a big bag of wind. You couldn't be further from the truth. Man, you can't stand to lose, can you?
@GodSpeed63
lol got ya, didn't i?
I got you angry enough that you actually felt the need to respond in some way but the best you could do was to regurgitate (without understanding) someone else's words. Now that i refuted your regurgitation and you've been challenged to go beyond that, you fall back into your humiliating attempts to save face.
Sorry kiddo, i'm not playing your child-style games.
Put up or shut up😁😁😁
lol got ya, didn't i?
I got you angry enough that you actually felt the need to respond in some way but the best you could do was to regurgitate (without understanding) someone else's words. Now that i refuted your regurgitation and you've been challenged to go beyond that, you fall back into your humiliating attempts to save face.
Sorry kiddo, i'm not playing your child-style games.
Put up or shut up😁😁😁
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Pikachu [quote]got ya, didn't i?[/quote]
Not at all. Is that all you're doin'? Trying to get me angry?
Not at all. Is that all you're doin'? Trying to get me angry?
Unlearn · 41-45, M
I would have said something if this post made more sense...
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
I saw that he deleted your comment. That prompted me to make my own post about it. I can't believe the dude isn't embarrassed for taking trolls that seriously. Anything for bias confirmation I guess lol. He has no shame 😆
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Bushranger · 70-79, M
Ah, Pikachu, when will you learn? You should know that the truth doesn't matter in this new, post facts world.
Keep up the good work, my friend.
Keep up the good work, my friend.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
I'm sorry they blocked you. That's religion for you though.
@GodSpeed63
Are you serious?
lol adorable.
Ok, let me show you a magic trick!😃
I'm going to conjure a subject that we've discussed before and everyone is going to gasp in [i]amazement[/i] as you refuse to rise to the challenge!
Endogenous retro viruses.
Let's right here and now debate the relative merits of an explanation for ERV's from a creation model and an evolution model.
You'll explain why virus genetic material appears in increasingly identical points on a genome the more closely related is a species using god and i'll do it using evolution through common descent.
What's more, we'll both have to do it using an explanation which remains applicable to the other branches of evidence. That is to say, no "just so" stories.
Ta Daa!
Now stay in this thread so you can pretend that you're not a coward but refuse to rise to the challenge...because you are.
It's what we've come to expect from you.
Point.
Proven😁
Are you serious?
lol adorable.
Ok, let me show you a magic trick!😃
I'm going to conjure a subject that we've discussed before and everyone is going to gasp in [i]amazement[/i] as you refuse to rise to the challenge!
Endogenous retro viruses.
Let's right here and now debate the relative merits of an explanation for ERV's from a creation model and an evolution model.
You'll explain why virus genetic material appears in increasingly identical points on a genome the more closely related is a species using god and i'll do it using evolution through common descent.
What's more, we'll both have to do it using an explanation which remains applicable to the other branches of evidence. That is to say, no "just so" stories.
Ta Daa!
Now stay in this thread so you can pretend that you're not a coward but refuse to rise to the challenge...because you are.
It's what we've come to expect from you.
Point.
Proven😁
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 Ah, but you do have a habit of diverting and avoiding topics if you feel uncomfortable with them. And, no, I'm not going to list them, you know which ones I'm talking about.
@Bushranger
[quote]Ah, but you do have a habit of diverting and avoiding topics if you feel uncomfortable with them[/quote]
Yeah....
It's a little obvious. I don't know why he denies it at this point
[quote]Ah, but you do have a habit of diverting and avoiding topics if you feel uncomfortable with them[/quote]
Yeah....
It's a little obvious. I don't know why he denies it at this point
BetweenKittensandRiots · 36-40, MVIP
Checking Snopes before forwarding the propaganda +1
TheMorningsStar · 26-30, M
Well, Snopes has lied on its fact checker on a liberal bias before, so people not trusting it is entirely justified.
@TheMorningsStar
Certainly. Which is why i suggested that he point out where the article was in error in any of its particulars.
Then he blocked me lol
Certainly. Which is why i suggested that he point out where the article was in error in any of its particulars.
Then he blocked me lol
Lol wot