Creationist vs Evolutionist
-
Yeah right... Isn't that just another way of bashing...?Originally posted by Icemoon:The whole debate is going in the wrong direction and many a times I think people are focusing on the wrong thing.
If you divide people into creationist and evolutionist camp, then it is hard to have any constructive argument, 'cos people just take this to be a God bashing topic. It is like if you disagree with evolution, then you must be a creationist. Is this the case? When one questions the strength of the evolutionist argument, SIS will rebuke "oh, you think God creating living thing is more probable?" and questions like that.
Why not throw away the grouping and ask better questions like
1. Is there anything wrong with the evolution model?
2. Do you think [the late] Stephen Jay Gould agrees with Darwin? Why or why not?
I remember one memorable point made during the Creation Seminar I attended. The speaker was commenting scientists use rocks to date the fossils (general knowledge). But when they want to date the rocks what do they use? Fossils! Can you believe that? Haha .. do they really do that sometimes?
PS: Neon is NUS Campus Crusade member? How was the Creation talk on thursday?
-
So Neon really CCC member ah? But dunno which fac one .. hope not science bah.Originally posted by NeonTetra:not bad.... -
How do you define bashing then?Originally posted by Devil1976:Yeah right... Isn't that just another way of bashing...?
I suppose bashing applies more to more subjective topics .. ya know, religious, racial issues where there is no clear cut answer and we should sometimes respect other people's belief (agree to disagree).
But hey, when we talk about science, especially using the rock to date the fossil and vice versa, that's really a big joke. -
The difference between Evolution and Creation boils down to 2 things:
- Evolution do not require a Superior Being. However, they do not conclude that there isnt one! It is purely scientific - all the evidence points towards this explaination.
- Creation require the belief of a Superior Being. They do not have ANY EVIDENCE watsoever, the only thing required is "belief". This, of course, is NOT science.
In other words: Evidence vs Belief, Science vs Religion
In fact, many Evolutionists are Christians. As mentioned before, Evolution is a SCIENCE subject, non-theist but not necessarily atheist. To think that if a person supports the idea of Evolution means he is anti-Christianity is wrong.
Why is there such a big fuss over this debate?
Come think of it, Creationism is NOT science, I hope you can agree on this already. The problem is, they want it to be taught in schools as a Science subject! This is absurd. You can belief in God, but that doesn't mean everybody must agree with you. If this is taught in school as a Science subject, everyone is forced to handle this idea of a Creator, which is totally unfair.
In this sense, I too stand on the side of Evolutionists. Creationism MUST NEVER be taught in school as a science subject. That is, until they can come up with some valid evidence.
Regarding your fossil dating method.
Creationists like to make use of certain topics that the general public has totally no knowledge of. How often have they made speeches in Christian related gatherings, or the general public? Why do they do that? Because they know the general public knows too little to counter their arguements.
How often do they even DARE to make speeches in the scientific community? I'm sure they will be horribly humiliated. Cause the experts know their stuff
Do you know any thing about dating methods? I can tell you the answer is a definite NO! I am 100% sure that you know next to nothing about it.
That is why you can easily be persuaded to believe in what he says, since he seems to know what he is talking about.
"Some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When you have those fossils, you can use them to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means. "
There are more than one way to do dating, and scientists use multiple methods to cross check. Radiometric methods are one, and corals produce skeletons with both daily layers and yearly patterns, so we can count the number of days per year when the coral grew.
So you see there are easily three methods already. Are you convinced yet?
Why would the Creationist speaker still speak of such topics? My guess:
- they are totally ignorant on the subject
- they know about it but since the general public dont know, they can be made to agree to a lie.
This is a perfect example of a Creationist's underhand strategy. If you really do some research on it, you will know the truth. -
Quote: How often do they even DARE to make speeches in the scientific community? I'm sure they will be horribly humiliated. Cause the experts know their stuff
Didnt I show u some experts name? First u say there are no creationist biologist. The way u phrase ur sentence is like there are no creationist in this world who holds a biologist position, historion, a phd or scientist.
Dun mislead. There are alot of experts..and yes with sufficient knowledge...(at least higher than all of us here) who are creationist. -
SIS brought up a very good point.Originally posted by AMD2004:Yes, a microevolution do occur. I agree with u that organism retain what is good and rejects what is bad for improvement to itself. Then let me ask u a question. Do u think that always remain being stupid is something good? So u see, if chicken would realize about this situation, they wont be slaughter for man to eat them. Or birds get shoot down. The fact is, they couldnt do anything about it is due to their limited intellectual capability. Goats , cow have been always a source of food for mankind since prehistoric age. But until today..they have not even improve slightly in thier intelectual. So..nothing drastic had happen in any evolution. Hence..i could say no macroevolution actually happen.
I know it is difficult for u to accept or even TRY to understand that creation exist. And dont always say there are no scietific evidence or WE CREATIONIST have nothing to proof. To proof ur statement wrong is already a proof by using science. Science and maths are also extremely related.
I see that there is no point exchanging ur views here. If this goes on to even 14 pages...it wouldnt change a single thing. Even if there are a few more similar threads...i could also see no difference. It will not end. Simple..because u will not even accept my fact though it sounds logical, because ur mind and soul ( oops u dun believe in one) will not tolerate any facts that go against your stand on evolution.
No point quoting other scientists or proffesors who are on the same boat as u too, because the most important person, it is u urself. Even if majority of these intelectuall ppl are believers in God, u will still stick with the minority % of the other who oppose the existense of God.
so just be a happy man. For those who are non - believers..u have so much more freedom on earth; guiltiness is bliss. For the believers, our main focus is our life after death. U can call us stupid, no knowledge, no common sense or whatever, i would just smile to u and carry my own way. Dun try to "save" me as much as u dun wan others to "Save" you.
Smarter is not necessarily the best, at least not for many organisms.
Take for example, I put you and a tiger in a concealed room, who do you think will fare better? You'll be minced meat in no time. Of course, this test is not fair to you, because I only test for who is the physically stronger.
Another example. I put you in a room with nothing except a rotten dead corpse. Do you think you can survive long? Even bacteria outlasts you, because they feed on rotten carcasses.
You dont need too much brains when you're in the wild. You dont need much brains when you need to decompose rotten meat. Each organism only need to work best in it's own environment.
quote:
"No point quoting other scientists or proffesors who are on the same boat as u too, because the most important person, it is u urself. Even if majority of these intelectuall ppl are believers in God, u will still stick with the minority % of the other who oppose the existense of God. "
You are totally right there. As far as religion is concerned, only I myself is the most important. What I believe is most important.
When talking about science, where evidence is most important, minority and majority makes little sense at all. Even if 99% of people belief in God, it dont mean science is a lie. Remember it is backed up by evidence, not belief. -
In this sense, I too stand on the side of Evolutionists. Creationism MUST NEVER be taught in school as a science subject. That is, until they can come up with some valid evidence.
How about if they teach Young Earth? You can rewrite the textbook arguing for a young earth and yet not mention a creator.
Creationists like to make use of certain topics that the general public has totally no knowledge of. How often have they made speeches in Christian related gatherings, or the general public? Why do they do that? Because they know the general public knows too little to counter their arguements.
I disagree. A proper Creation speech (call it a seminar) is not pure rhetoric, or should I say a sermon, where you hold a bible and say "the bible says so". A Creationist worth his salt will use scientific journals and arguments to prove his point.
You want to counter their argument? Simple, read up more to challenge him lor. In a way, he is challenging you to read up on the evidence.
How often do they even DARE to make speeches in the scientific community? I'm sure they will be horribly humiliated. Cause the experts know their stuff
Again I disagree. If Darwin was alive 10 years ago, he will be horribly humiliated by Stephen Jay Gould. Heh. -
There are creationist biologists of course, and many have their certifications.Originally posted by TrU PeAce (^0*)v:Quote: How often do they even DARE to make speeches in the scientific community? I'm sure they will be horribly humiliated. Cause the experts know their stuff
Didnt I show u some experts name? First u say there are no creationist biologist. The way u phrase ur sentence is like there are no creationist in this world who holds a biologist position, historion, a phd or scientist.
Dun mislead. There are alot of experts..and yes with sufficient knowledge...(at least higher than all of us here) who are creationist.
A poll was done in USA. < 0.15% are Creationists working in their relevant fields. Not that figures actually matter, but its just a show of how overwhelmingly low their numbers are. I guess the most probable reason is most relevent scientists know their stuff.
However, it dont matter how high the percentage is. What really matters is evidence as i have always said.
In fact, in the scientific community, the highest reward is given for those who are able to proof a proven theory wrong. If the Creationist are right, or even had some valid evidence, I'm sure we would have heard about it.
Another interesting point to note is, ZERO Creation articles are published in scientific papers/journals. Why?
Think about it
P.S > U can have a cert and still make silly comments against what you know, isnt it true? -
A poll was done in USA. < 0.15% are Creationists working in their relevant fields. Not that figures actually matter, but its just a show of how overwhelmingly low their numbers are. I guess the most probable reason is most relevent scientists know their stuff.
Actually there're many scientists who disagree with the "mainstream" and they're not creationist. Where do you put them?
However, it dont matter how high the percentage is. What really matters is evidence as i have always said.
Evidence points in both direction, this is what many people fail to understand.
Another interesting point to note is, ZERO Creation articles are published in scientific papers/journals. Why?
Are you that naive as to not know how the world works? It is like asking, why are opposition wards given less priority or money to upgrade their flats? Why? Mr Low or Mr Chiam buay gan?
I'm sure you read stories of how academics who taught or even hinted of creationism are threatened with the ending of their tenure. In a way, publicly admitting you're a Creationist may spell the end of your career. Who wants to risk their job?
Think about it
Same for you. -
Originally posted by Icemoon:
quote:
"How about if they teach Young Earth? You can rewrite the textbook arguing for a young earth and yet not mention a creator."
So far, all evidence are against the idea of Young Earth (10,000 yrs old). One example is by using radiometric readings, we are able to know that the Earth is about 4.6 bil yrs old. The reason for Young Earth idea is because it will rule out evolution, since there is too little time for it to happen at all.
Creationists like to make use of certain topics that the general public has totally no knowledge of. How often have they made speeches in Christian related gatherings, or the general public? Why do they do that? Because they know the general public knows too little to counter their arguements.
I disagree. A proper Creation speech (call it a seminar) is not pure rhetoric, or should I say a sermon, where you hold a bible and say "the bible says so". A Creationist worth his salt will use scientific journals and arguments to prove his point.
You want to counter their argument? Simple, read up more to challenge him lor. In a way, he is challenging you to read up on the evidence.
How did your speaker prove his point? Are there actual evidence of anything at all? Or is his whole speech trying to counter evolution by trying to "disprove" their evidence?
It is good if it is indeed his intention to challenge his audience to read up more. However, it seems very under-handed if he knows about stuff (for e.g. use of index fossils) and did not mention it at all. The general public has almost no idea on this subject, and many will probably not check them at all. So in their mind, what they heard is correct.
How often do they even DARE to make speeches in the scientific community? I'm sure they will be horribly humiliated. Cause the experts know their stuff
Again I disagree. If Darwin was alive 10 years ago, he will be horribly humiliated by Stephen Jay Gould. Heh.
Most scientists are not good speakers. If engaged in a speech debate, I'm sure they will not fair well. This can be due to alot of reasons in a live debate.
Talk Origins is a great website and they in fact challenges the ideas of the Creationists. Creationists can always challenge their counterpart in a web envoirnment. I think this is most fair, as there is enought time to research and rebut. -
Originally posted by Icemoon:
quote:
A poll was done in USA. < 0.15% are Creationists working in their relevant fields. Not that figures actually matter, but its just a show of how overwhelmingly low their numbers are. I guess the most probable reason is most relevent scientists know their stuff.
Actually there're many scientists who disagree with the "mainstream" and they're not creationist. Where do you put them?
LOL it's not up to me really, isnt it?
However, it dont matter how high the percentage is. What really matters is evidence as i have always said.
Evidence points in both direction, this is what many people fail to understand.
Interesting. Please kindly point me to a valid evidence from the Creationists?
Another interesting point to note is, ZERO Creation articles are published in scientific papers/journals. Why?
Are you that naive as to not know how the world works? It is like asking, why are opposition wards given less priority or money to upgrade their flats? Why? Mr Low or Mr Chiam buay gan?
I'm sure you read stories of how academics who taught or even hinted of creationism are threatened with the ending of their tenure. In a way, publicly admitting you're a Creationist may spell the end of your career. Who wants to risk their job?
You can be right there. Imagine how many people were against Darwin when he proposed his ideas on Evolution. However, why is it that most people accept his ideas now?
Very simple. I repeat again:
EVIDENCE
In the science community, if you are able to prove some basic theorem wrong, you can get very very well rewarded (fame)!
Think about it
Same for you.
Sure. Ok. About what? -
Do you know science cannot prove or know everything?
-
If science know everything, we would be as knowledgeable as God.Originally posted by sillyme:Do you know science cannot prove or know everything?
However, evidence is the most important element in Science. With no evidence, there can be no science about it.
Do you know Creationism have ZERO evidence? -
It is good if it is indeed his intention to challenge his audience to read up more.
He did. In fact, he told us to watch less Olympics and surf the net to read up .. lol
However, it seems very under-handed if he knows about stuff (for e.g. use of index fossils) and did not mention it at all.
There was a phrase he used to describe the evolutionist, is it "deception by omission"? His point was that many museums and textbooks do not tell the whole story. Lucy is depicted as resembling human more than an ape. You see the image of a human-like Lucy in illustrations. You see that in museums. When asked why the curators never change their exhibit to reflect the latest scientific understanding, they reply along the line of "oh there is no need to, it fits with our agenda".
I'm sure you know the history of paleontology. From one or two bones can reconstruct an entire ape-man. Winner. Their track record is nothing to boast of - Piltdown Man, Java Man, Nebraska Man ..
Here's something that may interest some of you - http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/top/story/0,4136,72148,00.html
Most scientists are not good speakers. If engaged in a speech debate, I'm sure they will not fair well. This can be due to alot of reasons in a live debate.
We're not looking for a Hitler in debate. Hey, get Ph.D not easy one ok, must defend your thesis from the professors. I'm sure they can engage a debate with the same degree of vigour.
Talk Origins is a great website and they in fact challenges the ideas of the Creationists. Creationists can always challenge their counterpart in a web envoirnment. I think this is most fair, as there is enought time to research and rebut.
Many a times the creationist complains "I wrote a rebuttal but they never publish it!" -
Interesting. Please kindly point me to a valid evidence from the Creationists?
You can be right there. Imagine how many people were against Darwin when he proposed his ideas on Evolution. However, why is it that most people accept his ideas now?
Haha, the church will tell you 'cos the people want to alienate themselves from God!
The irony is there're many scientists who disagree with Darwin. My favourite example is still .. the late Stephen Jay Gould. -
Originally posted by Icemoon:
quote:It is good if it is indeed his intention to challenge his audience to read up more.
He did. In fact, he told us to watch less Olympics and surf the net to read up .. lol
So did u actually read up on his "claims"? Why aren't u able to find out about the index fossil claim? (actually not an important point in our discussion, sorry O.T.)
quote:
"However, it seems very under-handed if he knows about stuff (for e.g. use of index fossils) and did not mention it at all.
There was a phrase he used to describe the evolutionist, is it "deception by omission"? His point was that many museums and textbooks do not tell the whole story. Lucy is depicted as resembling human more than an ape. You see the image of a human-like Lucy in illustrations. You see that in museums. When asked why the curators never change their exhibit to reflect the latest scientific understanding, they reply along the line of "oh there is no need to, it fits with our agenda"."
Great word. "deception by omission". He is guilty of that. (ref. index fossil)
quote:
"I'm sure you know the history of paleontology. From one or two bones can reconstruct an entire ape-man. Winner. Their track record is nothing to boast of - Piltdown Man, Java Man, Nebraska Man .."
Regarding these hoaxes, Creationists are fast to use them everytime.
I suggest you read more to find out the story behind them Click here
These are hoaxes, and Scientists are quick to admit and made relevant announcements. This is honesty.
Creationists rarely expose their own errors, and they sometimes fail to correct them when others expose them. Read More and Here
"One hoax cannot indicate the inferiority of conventional archeology, because creationists have several of their own, including Paluxy footprints, the Calaveras skull, Moab and Malachite Man, and others. More telling is how people deal with these hoaxes. When Piltdown was exposed, it stopped being used as evidence. The creationist hoaxes, however, can still be found cited as if they were real. Piltdown has been over and done with for decades, but the dishonesty of creationist hoaxes continues. "
Did the speaker speak of those blunders?
Here's something that may interest some of you - http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/top/story/0,4136,72148,00.html
Most scientists are not good speakers. If engaged in a speech debate, I'm sure they will not fair well. This can be due to alot of reasons in a live debate.
We're not looking for a Hitler in debate. Hey, get Ph.D not easy one ok, must defend your thesis from the professors. I'm sure they can engage a debate with the same degree of vigour.
There's a difference between being eloquent, and being knowledgable.
Talk Origins is a great website and they in fact challenges the ideas of the Creationists. Creationists can always challenge their counterpart in a web envoirnment. I think this is most fair, as there is enought time to research and rebut.
Many a times the creationist complains "I wrote a rebuttal but they never publish it!"
Any reference?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Icemoon:
Interesting. Please kindly point me to a valid evidence from the Creationists?
what do u mean by ? Any evidence? Links will be great.
You can be right there. Imagine how many people were against Darwin when he proposed his ideas on Evolution. However, why is it that most people accept his ideas now?
Haha, the church will tell you 'cos the people want to alienate themselves from God!
The irony is there're many scientists who disagree with Darwin. My favourite example is still .. the late Stephen Jay Gould.
u see, science has got NOTHING to do with BELIEF or FAITH or RELIGION.
Also, as i said before, majority or minority is meaningless here. Only EVIDENCE.
All existing evidence points towards Evolution. -
poopie-head i salute u.....EVIDENCE is the magic word.....remember:"science cannot prove everything.....but we're working on it.".......there may be wrong theories,but that doesn't prove science is WRONG....it's totally 2 different matters....it takes time,trial and errors and EVIDENCE...before the right theory is established...
juz like people in the past thinks that the sun revolve around the earth,
until one day when ppl sailed around the earth then they realised that the earth is round.
note:i knoe this post were surely be "countered" by somebody somehow...thats the trend...MAUHAHAHAHHAZ....peace out... -
Just to sidetrack a little.
I wonder if anyone noticed, but Poopie Head sure sounds and looks like the infamous Rob Chen.
Checkout the thread titled:
World's Top 500 Universities:new Global Ranking
Search with :'500 Universities'
The resemblance is remarkable. -
SIS will rebuke "oh, you think God creating living thing is more probable?"
I am trying to bring the irony for the reason to believe in intelligent designer. Wat is their reason to reject evolution ? They claim tat it is unlikely tat life is created without guidance. However they believe tat the life of the intelligent designer, which is harder to be created can pop out without guidance ! DO u know wat is the irony ? A do not believes B to get a pair of Aces in his next hand, but instead he can get a full flush.when we talk about science, especially using the rock to date the fossil and vice versa, that's really a big joke.
Big joke ? I thought the answer is very simple. They use multiple methods to verify the answer. Wat is so funny with tat ? If u have a complex account to handle, the accountant is required to do it twice to check if there r any errors isn't it ? So u wanna laugh at her saying tat she is using her first results to check her second one and her second results to check her first one ? They have a method to date the rocks. They have another method to date the fossils. They use both dates to check the result. It is the same as the accounting example isn't it ? It is just the wordings used are misleading.
Frankly... do u really think they r so dumb tat they depend totally on another for results ? Shouldn't tat would have given us no data at all ?Didnt I show u some experts name? First u say there are no creationist biologist. The way u phrase ur sentence is like there are no creationist in this world who holds a biologist position, historion, a phd or scientist.
I don't know man.. I thought they r teaching evolution in classes in almost all areas nowsaday ? Why don't the education system notice these people u have quoted ? There r a lot of experts who are evolutionists. And they r higher than all of us here... even thought u don't even know who all of us here r
Dun mislead. There are alot of experts..and yes with sufficient knowledge...(at least higher than all of us here) who are creationist.How about if they teach Young Earth? You can rewrite the textbook arguing for a young earth and yet not mention a creator.
Wat does the evidence shows ? There r overwhelming evidences tat show the earth is not young. I have given tis example before but I will do it again nevertheless...
In spite of MorrisÂ’ heroic effort to reinterpret the Petrified Forest of Yellowstone Park, the evidence is clear that a nearby volcano buried 27 forests on top of each other. Some of the trees have up to 400 rings. It took about 20,000 years for this to form
U believe in tree rings to verfiy age ? If u don't, why not ? No one has disprove of carbon dating ability to detect ages at least 50,000 years ago. There r objects tat were found having an age older than tis using carbon dating. Using speed of light, they found lights from outer space to have travelled more than 100,000 light years to reach us in earth. Do u believe in speed of light ? They can't teach Young Earth. Why ? It is because it is wrong ! WHy do people still believe in Young Earth theory despite these overwhelming evidences ? It still boils down to the bible isn't it ? If the world is not as old as the bible claims, then the bible is wrong ! Tis is a big scripture error.I disagree. A proper Creation speech (call it a seminar) is not pure rhetoric, or should I say a sermon, where you hold a bible and say "the bible says so". A Creationist worth his salt will use scientific journals and arguments to prove his point.
Really ? However he can choose which scientific journal to refer to and ignore the counter agrument to it isn't it ? Why don't u tell me some of the evidences tat he had pointed out ?
You want to counter their argument? Simple, read up more to challenge him lor. In a way, he is challenging you to read up on the evidence.Again I disagree. If Darwin was alive 10 years ago, he will be horribly humiliated by Stephen Jay Gould. Heh.
Really ? How come most people knows Darwin and little people know Stephen Jay Gould ? How come people mention about Darwin evolution in textbook and scientific journal while Stephen remains relatively unknown compared with Darwin ?Actually there're many scientists who disagree with the "mainstream" and they're not creationist. Where do you put them?
Wat stand r they taking then ? They don't believe in evolution, they don't believe in creation, then wat do they believe in ? I really can't see any third way about tis. So u believe the mainstream scentist is tis field believes in evolution ?Evidence points in both direction, this is what many people fail to understand
I must have been careless in my readings... Where r the physical evidences tat point the other way ?Are you that naive as to not know how the world works? It is like asking, why are opposition wards given less priority or money to upgrade their flats? Why? Mr Low or Mr Chiam buay gan?
??? Darwin used to go against maninstream belief tat life is created isn't it ? How come he is still famous today ? In those days he nearly get killed but his theories maintain as sceintific facts. U really shouldn't link politics with science...I'm sure you read stories of how academics who taught or even hinted of creationism are threatened with the ending of their tenure. In a way, publicly admitting you're a Creationist may spell the end of your career. Who wants to risk their job?
huh !?!? U know why ? Because it should be common sense tat evolution is true ! Will u employ a JW as a gun specialist ? Will u employ a physics teacher who claims he do not believe in Newton laws yet can't prove why he does not believe in it ?Do you know science cannot prove or know everything
??!? So wat do u think is a better way ? We put all the unknown in a black box call religion and sealed it up, never to explore and discover again ? Wat better system do u suggest to "prove" or "know" everything ? At least science enables men to utilise its knowledge to enables them to type in front of a computer.Just to sidetrack a little.
I don't understand. I never read the thread on the 500 universities and I don't care. Is his identity important ? I read his mails, not read his testimonials. BTW, if u aren't sure, don't anyhow accuse people of being A or being B. I suddenly find it irritating to hear such accusations nowsaday.
I wonder if anyone noticed, but Poopie Head sure sounds and looks like the infamous Rob Chen.
Checkout the thread titled:
World's Top 500 Universities:new Global Ranking
Search with :'500 Universities'
The resemblance is remarkable -
The irony is there're many scientists who disagree with Darwin. My favourite example is still .. the late Stephen Jay Gould
Okie... your favourite...
People disagree with darwin because of religion. Plain and simple. It is not because he is wrong but because his work make religion seems dumb. I am sure u believe in tat because u mention the church do not want people to be more alienated to god due to darwin. They can't face the facts tat there r no god. -
You must be a fan of Nietzsche. His famous line - "God is dead".Originally posted by stupidissmart:They can't face the facts tat there r no god.
-
Neh... I believe he never exists before... how can one be dead when he isn't even there to begin with ?
-
SIS is his own "christian", how ironic.
-
OFF TOPICOriginally posted by stupidissmart:I don't understand. I never read the thread on the 500 universities and I don't care. Is his identity important ? I read his mails, not read his testimonials. BTW, if u aren't sure, don't anyhow accuse people of being A or being B. I suddenly find it irritating to hear such accusations nowsaday.
LOL
Is it common that people re-register with a new nick in this board? Or maybe this Rob Chen guy is known to do it?
Nevertheless, I noticed that this message board frequently comes up with these posts speculating who is who (AS IF IT MATTERS). Does it make a person's post look better or less credible? In this single thread alone, I was being suggested to be SIS and Rob Chen in disguise.
I dunno if I should feel good or bad about it?
Poopie Head = SIS
Poopie Head = Rob Chen
so... SIS = Rob Chen ??
Keep guessing guys...
(more coming up?
) -
SIS is his own "christian", how ironic
There appears to have many differences between my belief and christainity. At least I believe in evidence