Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,422 Year: 3,679/9,624 Month: 550/974 Week: 163/276 Day: 3/34 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Side Orders ⇒ Coffee House ⇒

Humour VI

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Humour VI
Larni
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 255 of 553 (622726)
07-06-2011 7:50 AM

Buzz writes:
​
Jesus comes in the heavens.
​
Fnar, fnar.
​
EvC Forum: Which More 3LoT Compatible, Cavediver's Temp.Non-ID Or Buzsaw's Infinite ID Universe
​
Second sentence.
Larni
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 394 of 553 (638547)
10-23-2011 2:22 PM 		Reply to: Message 393 by Percy
10-23-2011 8:52 AM

Re: Oh, the stupid!
My favourite.
​
You left out the part about how a random woman from Kenya that he met at an airport told him that there are still something like pterodactyls roaming around there. That settles it, dinosaurs aren't extinct.
​
As an aside, have you every seen (in your tenure as Fearless Leader, here) evidence to support Creation? It seems as if (in the light of recent threads about creo inability to state their points intelligibly) an end to intelligent debate on this issue could be on the horizon.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
​
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
​
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Percy, posted 10-23-2011 8:52 AM Percy has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by Percy, posted 10-23-2011 4:26 PM Larni has not replied
Larni
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 402 of 553 (638614)
10-24-2011 9:10 AM 		Reply to: Message 401 by NoNukes
10-24-2011 9:07 AM

Re: Oh, the stupid!
I stopped reading when they said they had talked a lot about dinosaurs (with no mention a single dinosaurs details or even reference to a species).
​
If I was a kid who was interested in dinosuars I would have felt right gipped!
​
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
​
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
​
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by NoNukes, posted 10-24-2011 9:07 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied
Larni
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 408 of 553 (639132)
10-28-2011 9:12 AM 		Reply to: Message 407 by caffeine
10-28-2011 6:53 AM

Tabloids
*sniffle, wipes tear from eye*
​
Make's me proud to be an Englishman.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
​
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
​
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by caffeine, posted 10-28-2011 6:53 AM caffeine has not replied
Larni
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 410 of 553 (639138)
10-28-2011 10:01 AM 		Reply to: Message 409 by Panda
10-28-2011 9:53 AM

Re: WAR!!
I'm always greatful to the Daily Mail for keeping me up to date with the cancer cause/cure quotient for any given thing in the universe.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
​
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
​
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by Panda, posted 10-28-2011 9:53 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied
Larni
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display

(1)
Message 497 of 553 (643418)
12-06-2011 6:39 PM

And the Barman says "ain't I seen you already?"
​
A neutrino walks into a bar.
​
​
Courtesy of Arthur Smith BBC 4Extra.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
​
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
​
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by Shield, posted 12-06-2011 6:56 PM Larni has not replied
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024