Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-19-2004, 10:24 PM   #51
ShardmoonVer.1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 7,457
Let me put it this way, the part I started on was dry, but by the time I got through chewing I had a slime trail down my chin.
__________________
If you don't have something good to say about some one, say it loud.
ShardmoonVer.1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2004, 10:30 PM   #52
Hormadrune
Sociopathic bully?
 
Hormadrune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 11,897
Originally Posted by ShardmoonVer.1
Its true, I once ate my own mandrizzle out of Chuk's ass.
That is tough.
__________________
WoW-Ghostlands-US: Prae | sp | Prolonix | Horm | Ulfhednar | l
EQ: Hormadrune <Retired> <OFS> <CoI> <Affy> <CE>
Hormadrune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2004, 10:33 PM   #53
Deadscale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,140
I'm sure he can take 99%, i.e. while they sleep, back turned, on the shitter (man is most vulernable at this point).

Pretty bold statement.
__________________
I would like to extend to you an invitation to the pants party.
Deadscale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2004, 10:40 PM   #54
ShardmoonVer.1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 7,457
Whats funnier, me saying I ate the booger out of a dead mans nose, or Horm trying to turn it into something grosser. Leave it to an east coast elitist to try and one up some one aiming for the gutter.
__________________
If you don't have something good to say about some one, say it loud.
ShardmoonVer.1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2004, 10:45 PM   #55
Hormadrune
Sociopathic bully?
 
Hormadrune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 11,897
I didn't mean to be gross, I'm sorry. I was just masturbating while typing and that's what came out
__________________
WoW-Ghostlands-US: Prae | sp | Prolonix | Horm | Ulfhednar | l
EQ: Hormadrune <Retired> <OFS> <CoI> <Affy> <CE>
Hormadrune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2004, 10:54 PM   #56
ShardmoonVer.1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 7,457
Well, better that came out than blood. If you start seeing blood in your discharge its a sure sign of a deeper issue and should be looked into immediately. Blood or gummi bears. Both of them are bad.
__________________
If you don't have something good to say about some one, say it loud.
ShardmoonVer.1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2004, 10:58 PM   #57
Hormadrune
Sociopathic bully?
 
Hormadrune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 11,897
Originally Posted by ShardmoonVer.1
Well, better that came out than blood. If you start seeing blood in your discharge its a sure sign of a deeper issue and should be looked into immediately. Blood or gummi bears. Both of them are bad.
Is it bad if I refer to it as Gummy Berry Juice? You know, because I'm dashing and daring, courageous and caring.
__________________
WoW-Ghostlands-US: Prae | sp | Prolonix | Horm | Ulfhednar | l
EQ: Hormadrune <Retired> <OFS> <CoI> <Affy> <CE>
Hormadrune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2004, 11:10 PM   #58
ShardmoonVer.1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 7,457
Sure, knock yourself out. No really, do it. Knock yourself out.
__________________
If you don't have something good to say about some one, say it loud.
ShardmoonVer.1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2004, 11:26 PM   #59
Esmerald
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 38
I'm sure he can take 99%, i.e. while they sleep, back turned, on the shitter (man is most vulernable at this point).
So, you're willing to place your bets on a pacifist vs. 99% of a group of people made up of war-going military personnel (majority, or so the polls say... maybe the liberal poll hawks can correct me with how the majority of war personnel don't think they're doing the right thing, if I'm wrong here), village burning, Vietnamese child killing, lying swift boat personnel, warmongers and NRA members? I don't know about the rest of you Republicans, but I sleep with guns under my pillow and one eye open, and have a sawed-off shotgun stashed behind my toilet's water tank, and have a very itchy trigger finger... oh, and I'm from Texas (yeah, that seals your fate, pansy-boy). Hey, somebody has to step up and set the standard for anti-Republican based stereotypes, may as well be me.

Anyway, good luck... hope that bet pans out for you.



<political-based derailment maneuver>

Remarkably, Tyson was dead-on with that comment, and in all probability, he has no idea how profound a statement it really was.

Most Americans felt relatively safe pre-911. We're on a continent separated from those who hate us most; what possibility was there that terrorism would be demonstrated on our shores? After all, they're under-developed and ride camels, and we all know camels can't swim that far. We're a global superpower - what kind of a threat can turban wearing, camel jockeys be to us? Then we got hit...

Having a grandios plan was Kerry's greatest fallacy. He had a "plan" for everything. I think he tried too hard to convince the public that fixing all the problems was as simple as having a "plan", and assumed people would just believe that the rest of the world would fall into line behind him. There were no signs of a contingency plan, should some part of the world he's trying to hug decide to bitchslap him, and put a few passenger planes up his ass.

Unfortunately, fixing age-old problems in the world, like war (jihad... whatever you think it's all based around in this day and age... oh yeah, "oil"...), isn't as simple as fixing age-old problems like your face sliding off your skull, with a botox injection. By reasonable assumption, Kerry understood this, and he simply failed to satisfy the majority of the population that he was prepared for the unaviodable kinks in his plans that were sure to surface. If his plans didn't work out like he proposed - i.e. France jumping into our arms and making sweet love to us, or troops pulling our of the Middle East in 6 months <stifled chuckle> - then what?

"IIIIIIII have a plan!"
"Sir, if I ignored your plan, and instead shot you in the head today, what would you do?"
"You don't understand, I have a plan! And I would execute it better than the President has!"
"Umm, what? I just shot you in the head..."
"I have a plan!! Hey, Ketchup Bottles, schedule the world for a botox injection, would you dear? Nothing like a botox injection to supress all of this geopolitical unrest!"

</political-based derailment maneuver>

EDIT: We now return you to your regularly scheduled booger-eating diatribe.
__________________
:: Esmerald

Last edited by Esmerald; 11-19-2004 at 11:48 PM.
Esmerald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2004, 11:38 PM   #60
Deadscale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,140
Alright, alright...

5% while sleeping
4% while back is turned
and
1% while on the shitter and while wiping
__________________
I would like to extend to you an invitation to the pants party.
Deadscale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2004, 05:18 PM   #61
Brigiid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,879
Send a message via AIM to Brigiid
I'd hate to derail this perfectly intriguing derailment, but...

...I don't really see how you can call either of them "science". Not a single one of us were here either a) when the world was created, or b) when the big bang (or whatever you believe in) happened. It's all guesstimations and hypothesizing from there.

Yeah, get a scientist who believes in creation and he'll back it up with his "facts". Get a scientist who believes in evolution and he'll do the same. It's not like it can be observed or tested. Ask a creationist and they'll tell you modern geological testing is bogus. Ask an evolutionist and they'll debunk the creationists' methods. What you've ultimately got is a bunch of educated men and women arguing about something they didn't observe, can't test, and can't prove.

Believe that life is based upon scientific occurrences, or believe that life is based on the creation of a higher being. They've got about equal credibility. Believe what you want and let others do the same. Who cares?
__________________
Meh.
Brigiid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2004, 06:05 PM   #62
Vennetia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Japan, atm
Posts: 56
Send a message via Yahoo to Vennetia
/sniff /sniff
Do I scent intelligence on the EMarr boards??? Isn't that a violation of one of the bylaws???
Vennetia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2004, 06:11 PM   #63
Hormadrune
Sociopathic bully?
 
Hormadrune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 11,897
Originally Posted by Brigiid
I'd hate to derail this perfectly intriguing derailment, but...

...I don't really see how you can call either of them "science". Not a single one of us were here either a) when the world was created, or b) when the big bang (or whatever you believe in) happened. It's all guesstimations and hypothesizing from there.
Score board:
Evolution: Fossil record, massive amount of well-reasoned scholarly research supporting it.
Creationism: A book written by men about what they think God said to them.
Advantage: Evolution

Yeah, get a scientist who believes in creation and he'll back it up with his "facts". Get a scientist who believes in evolution and he'll do the same. It's not like it can be observed or tested. Ask a creationist and they'll tell you modern geological testing is bogus. Ask an evolutionist and they'll debunk the creationists' methods. What you've ultimately got is a bunch of educated men and women arguing about something they didn't observe, can't test, and can't prove.
First of all, no scientists believe in creationism. None. Scientific method and a belief in creationism are mutually exclusive. Secondly- "they'll tell you modern geological testing is bogus." Oh, so because they say so that proves it? Give me a break.

Believe that life is based upon scientific occurrences, or believe that life is based on the creation of a higher being. They've got about equal credibility. Believe what you want and let others do the same. Who cares?
No, one has credibility (evolution) and the other is a fairy tale (creationism). I care because some of you fucktards who are dimwitted enough to support creationism are perverting the educational system to accomodate your religious dogma at the expense of children learning proper biology. If it was simply a matter of differing opinions I could just laugh at you- but because it influences public policy decisions I can't.
__________________
WoW-Ghostlands-US: Prae | sp | Prolonix | Horm | Ulfhednar | l
EQ: Hormadrune <Retired> <OFS> <CoI> <Affy> <CE>
Hormadrune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2004, 06:27 PM   #64
Gauche
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,105
Actually, I bet you can find scientists who support Creationism. You might even be able to find biologists and geneticists who support Creationism. I would reasonably speculate that they weren't very good scientists, though.

Science doesn't require direct observation or duplicatable experiments. Both are very helpful, and preferable, but there are many other methods when those two aren't practical. And there have been plenty of discoveries that support some form of evolution, and very little that would remotely support Creationism.
Gauche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2004, 06:35 PM   #65
ShardmoonVer.1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 7,457
And if you link something that shows an actual scientest believes in Creationism, then the argument will become that no other scientest believes in it. And if you link another, the argument will shift again.

I find great humor that some one is defending the scientific theory (which relies heavily on questioning data) and in the same paragraph can state so emphaticly the rightness of his position. How very open minded.
__________________
If you don't have something good to say about some one, say it loud.
ShardmoonVer.1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2004, 07:05 PM   #66
AresProphet
Priest of Hiroshima
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,932
Send a message via MSN to AresProphet
Horm has put it a little more bluntly than I would. Either the very large body of evidence evolution rests upon is all based upon incorrect measurements, or it's all indicative of the truth.

Here's how it works, and since the example has already been brought up, I don't feel bad using it.

We have very powerful, very accurate telescopes and other instruments with which we have determined that a star is, say, a billion light years away. We also have very precise, accurate, and well-supported data that light cannot travel at any other speed than 3x10^8 meters per second in space, so it really must have taken those billion years to reach us.

For Creationism to be right, all that data would ahve to be utterly wrong. And not due to simple margins or error; it would have to be deliberately faked by God. He must have fooled us into thinking those measurements were right, for no apparent reason; what does it affect us if we know or don't know the speed of light? Or, he could have created the light at exactly 6,000 light years away so that we really think it's coming from billions of light years away, and our measurements are in fact correct. Those are the ONLY two possible explanations.

And either one rests on the premise that God is deceiving us. I imagine that notion would take more contortion to reconcile with religion that the acceptance that Creationism is, in fact, not scientific and not correct, and instead that the Bible simply got it wrong.

Why must the Bible be 100% correct? Does it invalidate the underlying "moral" lessons if it turns out it's not simply divine law, but rather just good to be nice to fellow humans? Would it upset religion that much to suddenly have to critically think, instead of relying on archaic devices created for the sole purpose of holding power over large groups of people?

That's all organized religion was ever intended to be, after all. It's understandable how a person could mistake the world for being the product of a divine influence, at least before the scientific method began showing us that's more likely not the case. But do you really need a alrge organization with a pyramidal power structure? It benefits none but those at the top, as with all good pyramid schemes, Do Catholics really benefit from tithing to the Pope? Not in the least; they're deluded into thinking God loves them mkore (or something) because they tithe.

It's just a nonissue anymore. Young-Earth Creationists have no legs to stand on, not without invalidating the core tenets of their faith. Is victory against evolution so important that they would throw away the foundation of Christianity to win?

Intelligent design has a little more credibility as a topic for philosophical and logical discussion. not scientific discussion, since it doesn't qualify as science, but neither does philosophy, that doesn't mean it isn't worth talking about. It does mean it shouldn't be taught as science, since it isn't. But at the very least they aren't relying on the whole of science being wrong; just that the conclusions of what science already knows are different.

To sum it up: either your God is tricking every human being, for some unfathomable reason which cannot be reconciled with everything else you say about Him, or the Earth is in fact not 6,000 years old.
__________________
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough


Attachment 181
AresProphet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2004, 07:16 PM   #67
Hormadrune
Sociopathic bully?
 
Hormadrune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 11,897
Originally Posted by Gauche
Actually, I bet you can find scientists who support Creationism. You might even be able to find biologists and geneticists who support Creationism. I would reasonably speculate that they weren't very good scientists, though.
Fair enough- I should have said "good scientists."

Originally Posted by Kiebler
I find great humor that some one is defending the scientific theory (which relies heavily on questioning data) and in the same paragraph can state so emphaticly the rightness of his position. How very open minded.
You show such utter ignorance of how scientists (an affliction I'm recovering from- tata neuroscience, hello b-school) work it's almost not funny. Almost.

More than the rightness of my position, it's the absurdity of yours that I have such a problem with.
__________________
WoW-Ghostlands-US: Prae | sp | Prolonix | Horm | Ulfhednar | l
EQ: Hormadrune <Retired> <OFS> <CoI> <Affy> <CE>
Hormadrune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2004, 07:21 PM   #68
ShardmoonVer.1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 7,457
Very compelling, but ultimately it flies in the face of the core belief of an individual who believes in the Creationist theory. You (and the anti-creationist) are asking that faith be set aside in the face of logic and it doesnt really work that way.

I do find your assertion that God would have to be deceiving his followers a bit condescending. He is said to work in mysterious ways and just because man doesnt understand it, doesnt invalidate it.

Personally I dont really care which theory people choose to believe. I dont think hearing either is going to ruin my kids fragile little minds. If i do my job well enough, she will be able to draw her own conclusions.
__________________
If you don't have something good to say about some one, say it loud.
ShardmoonVer.1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2004, 07:23 PM   #69
ShardmoonVer.1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 7,457
Once again you show your elitist attitude. Trust me dude, you havent earned that ego yet.
__________________
If you don't have something good to say about some one, say it loud.
ShardmoonVer.1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2004, 08:02 PM   #70
AresProphet
Priest of Hiroshima
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,932
Send a message via MSN to AresProphet
"God works in mysterious ways" is sufficient explanation for nothing. You might as well say "nothing is what it seems" and swear off concluding anything for the rest of your life.

You can draw all sorts of conclusions, yet when faced with one that might require a little bit of thought or criticism, you just shrug it off? Come on, I know you can do better than that. Already, from a few Bible passages, you can condemn a bunch of things; why can't you divine the nature of the universe from the same book?

Because it's a lot more complicated than simply accepting that we'll never know. Odds are good that at some point we will know, one way or the other. Unbridled skepticism is inappropriate when there is a lot of data from which to draw a conclusion.
__________________
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough


Attachment 181
AresProphet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2004, 08:09 PM   #71
Gauche
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,105
Originally Posted by AresProphet
We have very powerful, very accurate telescopes and other instruments with which we have determined that a star is, say, a billion light years away. We also have very precise, accurate, and well-supported data that light cannot travel at any other speed than 3x10^8 meters per second in space, so it really must have taken those billion years to reach us.

For Creationism to be right, all that data would ahve to be utterly wrong. And not due to simple margins or error; it would have to be deliberately faked by God. He must have fooled us into thinking those measurements were right, for no apparent reason; what does it affect us if we know or don't know the speed of light? Or, he could have created the light at exactly 6,000 light years away so that we really think it's coming from billions of light years away, and our measurements are in fact correct. Those are the ONLY two possible explanations.

And either one rests on the premise that God is deceiving us. I imagine that notion would take more contortion to reconcile with religion that the acceptance that Creationism is, in fact, not scientific and not correct, and instead that the Bible simply got it wrong.
Actually, light has been shown to be slowable, but nothing suggests it can go faster, at least not that would explain the entirety of the visible and detectable stars. It's also not impossible for what we consider fixed values to be different elsewhere in space, or elsewhere in time, but there's no reason to believe that the constants of reality are in fact variable.


I also have to agree with the assumption that God is deceiving in this scenario, regardless of the copout of "mysterious ways". If God is that apparently unpredictable and capricious, it goes against what most Christian sects claim is the nature of God. That might fit the Old Testament God, especially considering stories like Job.

I've heard the parent and child argument to attempt to explain things like this, but they all ultimately fall flat onto faith. Fine, more power to them in what they do at home and in church. But when they try to argue their faith qualifies as science, that's when I have to oppose their beliefs.
Gauche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2004, 08:34 PM   #72
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,566
Actually science has proven most if not all of the events of the bible with real events in human history, so science does sort of support biblical notions . But to say that the earth and all life on it is only 10k years old is ridiculous. There was another whole type of dominant life 200 million years ago with the dinosaurs and when modern man popped on this earth(through possible UFO influence!) the earth had already been twirling around with the rest of the galaxy for 4 billion years.
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2004, 09:09 PM   #73
Brigiid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,879
Send a message via AIM to Brigiid
From what I recall, running in the Christian/Creationist circles when I was in school, there was quite a bit of documentation from their "scientists" debunking evolutionary theory. I remember texts saying that traditional methods of dating various archeological finds had been found to be flawed, or found to show that the earth could have only been X number of thousands of years old. Do I have the documentation there? Nah. I don't care that much.

Bottom line: either side can present "facts" and "statistics" to represent their claims. Neither side can prove jack shit. It's all sophisticated guesswork, I don't care how many PhD's you throw behind either side of the argument. It's attempting to piece together clues to something that happened thousands, millions, billions or trillions of years ago. There isn't anything that either side can produce that will prove their claim to be truth.

I know how I was raised and what I was told to believe. I know what I believe now. Does it matter if everyone else agrees with me? No. It's not going to change my life. It's not going to change the world around me. Arguing truth vs. lies here is sorta pointless - no one can prove anything, and even if they could, would it matter?
__________________
Meh.
Brigiid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2004, 09:26 PM   #74
Gauche
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,105
Originally Posted by Brigiid
Does it matter if everyone else agrees with me? No. It's not going to change my life. It's not going to change the world around me. Arguing truth vs. lies here is sorta pointless - no one can prove anything, and even if they could, would it matter?
But that doesn't stop you from inserting your own opinion on the subject.

The problem with your counterpoint is that while scientists aren't perfect, their results can generally be confirmed or disproven. And many fields of science produce tangible results that work in accord with the theories they are based on. So while the hypotheses and theories that scientists come up with may not be right, they lead to real and reliable effects or disprovable projections.
Gauche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2004, 09:39 PM   #75
Hormadrune
Sociopathic bully?
 
Hormadrune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 11,897
Originally Posted by ShardmoonVer.1
Once again you show your elitist attitude. Trust me dude, you havent earned that ego yet.
Coming from someone as "humble" as you? Fuck off hypocrite.
__________________
WoW-Ghostlands-US: Prae | sp | Prolonix | Horm | Ulfhednar | l
EQ: Hormadrune <Retired> <OFS> <CoI> <Affy> <CE>
Hormadrune is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:26 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.