Top Ten Creationist Arguments Part 1 and 2

[samoth]

Or else what, you going to fuck me up? You have awful smart mouth on you dude... Why dont you go to the aas forums, afterall this is a steroid site...

Thanks, but I'm not interested in whatever product you're pushing that can't even make it onto the shelf of a GNC store.

Why don't you join me in a pharma R&D lab; after all, this is a drug site.

 

[cindylou]

M4?

 

[ledhead]

M4?

Yeah, it is/was a machine gun with a silencer. I think it was made in 1994, and was not issued until 1997. The army issues that weapon to their best rifleman. We used the M16A2. The marines don't have a best rifleman, they are all equally great. No need for a silencer, we wanted them to know we were coming.









I can't say enough about the two Marine divisions. If I use words like 'brilliant,' it would really be an under description of the absolutely superb job that they did in breaching the so-called 'impenetrable barrier.' It was a classic- absolutely classic- military breaching of a very very tough minefield, barbed wire, fire trenches-type barrier.
Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, U. S. Army
Commander, Operation Desert Storm, February 1991

​

​

 

[AFeedz]

If you did you would be living under the assumption that those texts were the infallible inspired word of God. So no one can know the word of God except by piecing together 5,000 or so different pieces of manuscript? Inspiration is only in the originals?

I don't know why I never clicked this thread...but if you're saying the Bible is not in fact inerrant, I totally agree.

 

[miplank]

cindy in 3...2...

 

[cindylou]

I don't know why I never clicked this thread...but if you're saying the Bible is not in fact inerrant, I totally agree.

Well, sorta and not really

 

[cindylou]

cindy in 3...2...

stfu!!!!

 

[AFeedz]

I don't get it. lol

I swear I'm not trolling, I really don't.

Anyways, I think the Bible has errors and still think it was divinely inspired.

 

[miplank]

stfu!!!!

 

[RottenWillow]

Wouldn't a truly religious person devote the necessary time and resources (since we're talking about their eternal soul and stuff) to learn at least the latin translation and interpretations?

Don't bring that to a real debate. That's a very poor argument. That position is informed more by an emotional commitment to a oppositional stance than reason.