Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Moderately entertaining

At 11/9/06 01:55 AM, Nylo wrote: Opinions belong in the classroom.

No they don't. How to pass the upcoming exam belongs in the classroom.

The end.

At 11/8/06 09:25 PM, DarkNati0nX wrote:

At 11/8/06 06:43 PM, Peter-II wrote: Unlogical? What the fuck is an unlogical, you clueless retard? Do you even speak English?

Yes.

So what's an "unlogical"?

Debate, as in discussion, as in arguing...

Yet the arguing didnt get anywhere..

Correct. What's your point?

Seriously, do you actually speak English, or are you just typing random words into the text box and hoping it makes a valid point? Because that would explain a lot.

That would explain why you are doing the exact thing you just told me not to do...

Hah, that was crap. Try harder, please. I want a mental challenge this time.

What's funny is you revived a two-month old topic just so you could have the last word in an internet debate. And you imply I'm depressed....

a month actually or at least 3 weeks..

The last post in this topic before your revival was made on 20th of September. You revived this topic on the 7th of November. That's hardly "a month actually or at least 3 weeks".

So what took you so long, arsehat? Thought I wouldn't see this?

LMAO! You were the presistent-'asshat'

I was on a plane from asia to the u.s. 2 weeks ago, and I had to get the connection to the internet with comcast :D, no actually I was expecting you since your a 'asshat'.

Even so, there's really no need to revive a topic unless you have something new to bring to the table, which you clearly don't have.

At 11/7/06 07:19 PM, DarkNati0nX wrote:

At 9/20/06 11:23 AM, Peter-II wrote: I'm going to leave this topic because you obviously have all the logic of a brick wall.

Oh noes, the unlogical idiot calls me a unlogical idiot :'( Isnt irony sweet?

Unlogical? What the fuck is an unlogical, you clueless retard? Do you even speak English?

Consider yourself the debate victor, if you want.

Debate? What do you mean debate? we wasted a page or two hitting each other with your so called "meaningless rhetorics"

Debate, as in discussion, as in arguing...

Seriously, do you actually speak English, or are you just typing random words into the text box and hoping it makes a valid point? Because that would explain a lot.

Have fun stewing in your ignorance.

Have fun stewing in your depression.

What's funny is you revived a two-month old topic just so you could have the last word in an internet debate. And you imply I'm depressed....

So what took you so long, arsehat? Thought I wouldn't see this?

At 11/7/06 10:44 PM, Techware wrote:

At 11/7/06 07:58 PM, UnusQuoMeridianus wrote:

OMG!! the grass i just walked all over is alive, wo is me.

Ironic. You're willing to jump in front of a tractor to save a tree, but when it comes to human life in which you don't want to bare any responsibility, "killing" is A-OK.

*salute*

Wow.

That was not only a stupid assumption, but a stupid generalisation.

*salute*

At 11/7/06 03:34 PM, Jose wrote: Give me one good reason why hitting someone who is smaller and weaker then you is good idea.

Your post is based off the assumption that all women are weaker than men. That simply isn't true.

If anyone attacks you seriously, they should be struck, regardless of their gender.

Man that was an awesome movie.

At 11/4/06 12:34 AM, thejvman wrote: 2. Early on there was a discussion of what would have created God, and i have done a bit of research on the matter of things that exist outside of time and space, and i have found that electrons exist outside either one of these at any given time seeing as electrons either have a location or a speed at any given time, but never both.

Incorrect. Electrons do have a location and a speed at the same time, but it's impossible to determine its location and speed simultaneously.

I also feel obliged to point out that child psychology isn't even an undergraduate, unless you go to a very specialized university.

I think you're full of shit, though. You'd know that dyslexia isn't bullshit if you were studying child psychology.

At 11/1/06 10:21 PM, Clunes wrote:

At 11/1/06 10:20 PM, BigScizot wrote: So what is your PHD in? Neurology? Pyschology? Pediatrics maybe?

child psychology, yes.

Idiot, you can't have a PhD at the age of 19.

You were right about some things in your rant, but I got pissed off when you started talking about mass death and tsunamis. Nobody really cares about them.

At 11/1/06 09:02 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote: Yup.

Did you get that off the Wasteland of Wonders, or has that symbol actually spread?

At 11/3/06 05:09 AM, Steel-Reserve wrote:

At 11/1/06 06:20 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 10/31/06 10:40 PM, Steel-Reserve wrote: This story is the truth.

That does not prove God's existence. All it proves is that the girl liked the idea that some magical man in the sky cared for her, and so suited it to her needs.

I know other girls like her who pray to earth godesses and whatnot. They write poetry about self-mutilation, and have cutting parties at each other's houses. What's your take on that?

My take on that is that "earth godesses and whatnot" don't have the same ability to rehabilitate as what I assume is the Judeo-Christian god. It isn't as meaningful as you might think.

At 10/31/06 10:40 PM, Steel-Reserve wrote: This story is the truth.

That does not prove God's existence. All it proves is that the girl liked the idea that some magical man in the sky cared for her, and so suited it to her needs.

At 11/1/06 01:16 AM, fahrenheit wrote:

At 10/31/06 10:34 PM, UnusQuoMeridianus wrote: find me a birth control method that is 100% effective and easy to use (i.e. not abstinence).

condoms+thepill+morningafterpill+vaginacon dom

Wow, it'd be like kissing someone through glass.

In the UK at least, I've noticed a lot of specialized cycle routes pop up recently.

They can actually take you just about anywhere if you can navigate them properly. I generally cycle whenever I can these days,

At 10/31/06 03:33 PM, troubles1 wrote:

At 10/30/06 05:07 PM, Tancrisism wrote: This may help explain things in an easy and understandable way.

wow!!!! I just watched that it was by far some of the most disturbing incidents I have herd of by a so called church . I wonder what TOM-CRUSE, Would say about this???

Tom Cruise would say it's just media and / or pro-psychiatry lies.

At 10/30/06 10:23 PM, Grammer wrote: Do you people really believe that arguing one way or the other about religion is going to convince anyone? I think it's only okay to argue religion when you're defending it, or your agnosticism or w/e, but I don't think alienating the other side makes you any less right or wrong.

No matter what you people say or do, God will either exist, or not. An argument over the internet isn't going to increase the chances of one or the other, even if you felt you "won".

You are so correct. I find religious debates tedious because nobody convinces anyone. If somebody is going to convert or lose their faith, chances are it won't happen over an internet debate.

I honestly just post in these threads to debunk the junk science that people spout.

At 10/30/06 04:06 PM, Imperator wrote:

That is avoiding the issue. The Republican party was voted in again, due to the group mentality which comes with a war.

Correlational evidence, not causational. You need more proof that the sole reason Bush was re-elected was due to the War Rally mentality.

I wouldn't say it was the sole reason. The fact that Bush seemed more on the ball than Kerry (i.e., he stuck to his decisions) was also a factor. However, there is definitely a "war" mentality that comes with a country - that is, civilians will feel safer with the same leader if a war is going on.

You're skirting the fact that the Democrats lost, and instead of concentrating on their problems and platforms, you're focusing on Republican failures.

I'm not focusing on Republican failures in general, however a topic called "Do we need to be in Iraq" does seem to invite that kind of discussion.

That's actually one of the reasons WHY Kerry lost; too busy bad-mouthing Bush than formulating his own plans on how to govern the nation.

I agree.

Bush may not have the best ideas, but at least he HAS ideas....

Americans like a leader who at least looks like they have a plan. The "I don't know what the hell I'm doing" approach Kerry and the Dems took is what lost them the election........

I agree.

At 10/29/06 10:44 PM, Nylo wrote: Can I just put something out here. Darwinism is full of holes. It completely contradicts the cambrian explosion, he was way off base on Galapagos island finch birds, and completely contradicts natural science: the specimen that mutates is usually isolated and killed off for being different. Darwinism is not a scientific law, guys. Does that offend you? Does that make you think I'm a close minded fool?

Congradulations for making science a religion. You're no better than my bible-thumping ass.

Of course Darwinism is full of holes. Darwin wrote The Origin of the Species about 130 years ago. The theory of evolution has, of course, since been refined.

I may be inferring your post incorrectly, but I find it annoying not to mention ignorant when people claim that Darwinism is the say-all and end-all to all things evolution related. It isn't. It really isn't.

Really, if I was a Christian I'd just accept the ceation hymn etc. in Genesis to be a metaphor, disassociate myself with the anti-science bullshit and continue with my life.

I personally don't like your theory.

Luciferians

At 10/29/06 05:33 PM, neoptolemus wrote: Really? Fuck, us her ein Britian don't meet people like that very often if ever. At the most we have some random person shouting in the city centre about how we're all going to hell until they get abused by chavs.

I live in the UK as well.

So, are you lucky, or am I just unlucky?

At 10/29/06 04:28 PM, Draconias wrote: Cmon, people, you should know not to feed the troll.

Hah, yeah, but I actually think he's being serious. I have met numerous people like him.

At 10/29/06 03:50 PM, jlwelch wrote: Actually there is. Noah saving selected animals from a flood, the parting of the Red Sea, these and more are all recording in a most valuable historical document called the Bible.

1) This is irrelevant. Not only are you referring to a historical document written thousands of years ago which obviously won't have stood up to the test of time, but I'm talking about supernatural creations as opposed to supernatural happenings in general.
2) I'm also talking about personal experience as opposed to secondary experience written in the book.

Well what other logical explanation do you have to offer? Anything other than a Creator defies the already established mass/energy conservation laws, the law of momentum conservation, conservation of charge, etc...

No. By evidence of the Planck epoch, theories such as the gravitational singularity theory and quantum gravity account for this. Furthermore, how exactly does a supernatural explanation NOT defy the laws you name? And what about the numerous laws and principles that supernatural explanations defy? Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, also known as Occam's razor, for instance.

Any nonCreation explaination is in direct violation of scientific fact, which is why I deem Evolution and the Big Bang to be an embarrassment to the name of Science.

"Scientific fact"? So how do you account for the monumental amount of evidence for evolution and the big bang?

The "Evangelical BS" is much more logical than Evolution or Big Bang for the reasons described above. The Bible warns of inexplicable anger in the lost towards those who attempt to witness to them. I hope you recognize this for what it is.

How, exactly, is it more logical? Your arguments on this board are full of logical fallacies, such as the appeal to absent knowledge fallacy ("the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true").

Nothing you can do or say will make me convert to Christianity.

And nothing you can say or do will make me stop trying for I fear for your fate after your time in this world expires.

Yawn. Is that so.

At 10/29/06 03:05 PM, jlwelch wrote: First off, when you see a painting you know there is a painter. When you see an automobile, you know there is a maker. Therefore, just seeing the world is absolute proof that there must be a maker. As the Way of the Master Guys say, all you need is "eyes that can see and a brain that works".

Arguments such as the one you presented seem compelling at first but do not pass the test of careful revision.

jwelch, the only reason we know that a painting has a painter is through experience of seeing paintings and knowing / being taught that they were made by the process of painting, and were thus made by a painter. Same goes with automobiles, coke cans, etc.

However, there is no experience in creations made by supernatural processes. The fact is, you can't know if the universe was created because we as humans have never seen a creation made by means of natural processes before. This is why your argument begs the question - it assumes the existence of a creator in the first place. Thus, the argument is logically flawed.

And when you're responding to this, don't give me that evangelical bullshit. I want to keep this a purely logical argument. Nothing you can do or say will make me convert to Christianity.

At 10/29/06 09:56 AM, bobsmovie wrote:

At 10/28/06 05:37 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 10/28/06 12:48 PM, bobsmovie wrote: Nirvana
Jack White
SOAD

Hahaha you're retarded.

Let me guess... your a great fan of Justin Timberlake. *cough* WANKER *cough*

Okay, so you ARE retarded.

You are aware that there are genres other than pop-rock and nu-pop, right?

At 10/28/06 12:48 PM, bobsmovie wrote: Nirvana
Jack White
SOAD

Hahaha you're retarded.

You snooze, you lose

At 10/26/06 06:08 PM, oblivion wrote: Yes well, i've never spent anytime at the bbs, mostly flash and audio portal.

So wait, you signed up when you were 11?

At 10/25/06 04:37 AM, HairydragonballZ wrote: What happens when you fire an unstoppable cannonball into an unbreakable wall?

Well first of all, it's impossible to have an "unstoppable" cannonball. I assume what you mean about the unbreakable wall is that it's immovable rather than unbreakable, and it's impossible to have an unbreakable object.

You people suck at paradoxes.