Gene Frenkle

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

I'm not talking about its legality. I do, however, think it has a larger purpose than your giving it credit for. I'm not talking about either of those things. All that opinion crap aside, what characteristics do you see that make it different than any other religion? It is what it is - a belief system. Age should not be used to make one religion more valid than another. There are plenty of religions older than the ones that are popular today.

Lol, please explain how The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a religion. This should be good. Personally, I view your hate-filled opinion as intolerant, disrespectful and ignorant. I don't think you'd appreciate someone telling you that that Jesus Christ crap is not a religion.

OR...these moral values are evolutionary mechanisms that won out to help advance the species. Do you really need the Bible to tell you that killing is wrong? The principals you speak of are common themes that run through nearly every religion ever. Curious, no? Coincidence? Maybe it's just ingrained in your genetic code. Maybe that's where the men who wrote the Bible got it from. But continue to ascribe all goodness in the world to god and that book if it makes you feel better. It never ceases to amaze me how otherwise intelligent and rational people completely lose their schitt when religion and faith come into play. Perhaps, in the big picture, it doesn't matter, but holy crap! Insanity...

Thanks man! That might be the nicest thing you've ever said to...well...anyone! Careful with the Zombie Jesus thing though. PPP gets MAD about that one I've found. Just remember, while I don't post much, I'm always lurking, watching and judging. Kinda like You Know Who. Breakfast drinks and Wookies? I'm so confused.

Sup bud! YOU always make me laugh. As for that other guy, I don't find his jokes funny at all, especially the bald guy thing. Then he just keeps rubbing it in, teasing me with potential cures that never pan out. What an a-hole that guy is! At least he doesn't pull any of that 'flooding the world with rain water' or 'killing all the firstborn boys' crap anymore. Maybe he's finally growing up. Maybe his sense of humor is just a bit more subtle these days. Who knows. He's certainly coming off as a little insecure by revisiting the '40% of all important rules revolve around me' thing all the time. I mean it's like, come up with some original material once in a while, amirite? The Ten Commandments: The Original L.A.M.P.

With regard to the Ten Commandments, I think George Carlin said it best. Put these up: 1. Thou Shalt Always be Honest and Faithful, Especially to the Provider of Thy Nookie. 2. Thou Shalt Try Real Hard not to Kill Anyone, Unless, of Course, They Pray to a Different Invisible Man than the One You Pray To. 3. Thou Shalt Keep Thy Religion to Thyself. </driveby>

So basically, Russ is cheap?

Can't hit his targets consistently? 69.2% is pretty consistent for any NFL QB. Confused? Lacking true leadership? I'd love to see some specifics on how you think his performance last night supports your silly claims. WTF are you even talking about?

Nothing to see here but typical "moral majority" bullschitt. How surprising! Don't F with 'em in the womb, but once they're out, watch out!!! Fair game. Honey, get me my spankin' switch! Heeeee Haaaaawwwww!!! Wouldn't have expected it from this crew of course... Don't spare the rod, belt or wooden spoon - The Good Book requires it. Retards. Damn those sciency no-spank studies. Beat the crap out of those 5 year old! It's fer ther own good. Got any, you know, "evidence" to back up those pro-beat-down opinions you glorious Christ-like Christians??? I get confused by big concept words sometimes. Was that question ironic, oxymoronic, both or neither? Cheers! </driveby>

lolyolo

Perhaps they're simply unwilling to promote a book penned by a convicted felon?

The simplest explanation usually being the best, it's more likely they were f-ing with you... Where's the video to go along with this image? No smartphones in Chile?

Holy cherry picking! Did you even read the article you cited? C'mon, you're better than that! Lol

Absence of denial does not a true believer make.

I wasn't commenting on the data, just adding to your list of data points. God did it to f with you and give you a chance to prove your faith and devotion.

The last 800,000 years (ice core records) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

I'd suggest that you and DC Tom are one in the same, but that's just too hard to believe.

Tom, I've known you to be pretty rational most of the time about most things. For you to so enthusiastically skewer hard data collected over a period of 34 years while going completely crickets on the image touting "global cooling" based on 2 data points should make you consider that you might not be completely objective on this particular issue. I'm sure you'll try blasting me for this, but I'm convinced you're favoring one side based on your political leanings here. Welcome to PPP!

I'd say they're using the entire dataset, which is arguably the best they can do. I'm not putting this forth as proof of AGW, just as a counter to the ridiculous 2012-2013 pictures many seems so happy to accept as proof of "global cooling". Not me! The coffee's getting cold and I have more important things to do than bang my head against the wall. Cya!

Also, apparently satellites have only been monitoring Arctic ice since 1978, which explains the 1978 to 2013 range. Oh cute, you have no actual response. It's been a while, but it's good to know you remain reliable.

As opposed to the pretty picture representing a domain of 2012 to 2013? C'mon...that is sensationalized bull ****. It shows a range purposely chosen to make a ~60% variance look grossly worse than it actually is, over a time frame for which there's no valid justification either way for choosing (why not since 1950? Why not since 1995?) illustrating an increase with a linear approximation which may or may not be valid. It's only meaningful to simpletons - gatorman must be loving it.

Probably NASA? My post wasn't disputing Nanker's pictures and the graph I posted supports them. Taken out of context, they seem to prove "global cooling". It's misleading cherry-picking at best. Is the graph I posted really so hard to understand?

To be fair, the ice cap did grow significantly in 2013, but only relative its smallest ever recorded size in 2012. Just sayin...

RIP