RE: Smut for Smut
March 18, 2010 at 8:57 pm
(This post was last modified: March 18, 2010 at 9:02 pm by Pippy.)
"Sex is great and pornography spoils it" Very good point. That desensitization to sexual stimuli leads to porn addicts having less fun in the sack... Thank you Frodo.
"Oh, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE post these web sites that 'prove the existence of God'"
Thor, god of thunder, I don't think you've been listening fully. I made the point repetedly that I did not garnish my opinion of belief in god from reading a website or a book. I made the point that the only way I could find a website to link to as "proof" would be to make my own. I said multiple times that in my opinion, that I know of, there are no web sites I can link to to prove god. Are there any you can link to to disprove her? Are your opinions availble in full on the web?
Long and short, there are no such sites. Thank you.
-Pip
Oh yeah, and I looked at that trial Tavarish. That is a load. It took about a minute to find the part where the opening statements were, and the guy said that a definition of ID is that fish were created with their scales on already. I am not on board with that. There is no way for that to be the case. I don't know if this is like homeopathy, that the word means far different things to different people... Or if this is that I misunderstood ID... If I did, then I redefine my own interpretation of ID theory (as if I already hadn't). But fish with scales already, not a chance. ID, to me, means that god started the top spinning, and stepped back and calmly watched it spin. That the systems are designed, but that god doesn't like to reach down and make miracles. That the real miracle is the creation of this material world. Fish with scales, I would have laughed them out of court as well...
"Oh, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE post these web sites that 'prove the existence of God'"
Thor, god of thunder, I don't think you've been listening fully. I made the point repetedly that I did not garnish my opinion of belief in god from reading a website or a book. I made the point that the only way I could find a website to link to as "proof" would be to make my own. I said multiple times that in my opinion, that I know of, there are no web sites I can link to to prove god. Are there any you can link to to disprove her? Are your opinions availble in full on the web?
Long and short, there are no such sites. Thank you.
-Pip
Oh yeah, and I looked at that trial Tavarish. That is a load. It took about a minute to find the part where the opening statements were, and the guy said that a definition of ID is that fish were created with their scales on already. I am not on board with that. There is no way for that to be the case. I don't know if this is like homeopathy, that the word means far different things to different people... Or if this is that I misunderstood ID... If I did, then I redefine my own interpretation of ID theory (as if I already hadn't). But fish with scales already, not a chance. ID, to me, means that god started the top spinning, and stepped back and calmly watched it spin. That the systems are designed, but that god doesn't like to reach down and make miracles. That the real miracle is the creation of this material world. Fish with scales, I would have laughed them out of court as well...
