10

[Nathan Poe]

Uhhh..... Klatuu Barada Nikto?

 

[kingreaper]

Uhhh..... Klatuu Barada Nikto?

you mean Klatuu Barada Nikto

 

[jwu]

Aron-Ra oesn't know whats going on I think. and typed in some ranom stuff

then again it might just be another language or something

It's a quote from the movie "Excalibur", some kind of invocation charm.

jwu

 

[Nathan Poe]

It's a quote from the movie "Excalibur", some kind of invocation charm.

jwu

Ah... Interesting.

Now, can we let the issue drop so that this thread can sink like so much dead weight back to the bottom of the forum where it belongs?

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Why oh why did you resurrect this nonsense?

* Nathan Poe smacks HRE around a bit with a large trout.

We're gonna need a bigger trout.

Ghost

 

[yossarian]

has anyone figured out what combination of drugs you have to take for the OP to make sense?

 

[Rochir]

Aron-Ra oesn't know whats going on I think. and typed in some ranom stuff

then again it might just be another language or something

What does all this greek writing mean???

 

[Jet Black]

What does all this greek writing mean???

I have to take the "remove user from ignore list" pill first, and I don't want to do that.

 

[kingreaper]

What does all this greek writing mean???

Convert the fint from symboll to verdana

And JB who are you ignoring?

 

[Aron-Ra]

You have no idea what this is meant to say do you​

maybe I should threaten you many times while you cannopt read me ​

I can read you pretty easily. ​

Did you ever see the old movie, Excalibur? In that movie, Merlin went around chanting the "charm of making" in olde Irish. That's what I was quoting:​

annal nathrak uth vaas bethud dothiel dienve ​

 

[Jet Black]

Convert the fint from symboll to verdana

And JB who are you ignoring?

colossians, SIXDAYCREATIONIST and that other one. forgotten his name now. the moderators aren't doing anything about their behaviour, so I figured I would.

 

[mycatspice]

The evolutionist, we have pointed out on other threads, builds his platform on a logical redundancy.
When you ask him how such and such evolved, he will answer you with a description of its current utility, and suggest that those without such utility were culled by natural selection. As we have pointed out, his position is summed up by the parody "post hoc ergo propter hoc", which is to say "after the fact, therefore before the fact".



But evolutionists have trouble grasping abstract concepts, so this thread is designed to put the issue into a simple framework.

Let us use the number '4' to represent the current state of a supposed evolved entity.
Let us use the number '1' to represent a catalytic situation, or some assistance/partnership, on route to the number '5'.
Let us use the number '5' to represent an intermediary utility/purpose of '4'.
Let us use the number '10' to represent an ultimate utility/purpose of '4'.



The dialogue:
Creationist: "how did '4' evolve?"
Evolutionist: "because '4' had an advantage over '3': it could combine with '1' to form '5', instead of having to combining with two lots of '1'".
Creationist: "so?"
Evolutionist: "so '5' was needed because it fits exactly two times into '10'!".
Creationist: "but that is only so because '10' divided by '2' produces '5'! Why is it that '10' exists in the first place? Where did it come from?"

(The evolutionist, realising there is something missing in his reasoning at this point, but not really wanting to find out what, immediately invokes his higher-than-usual evolved thought-blocking ability, and declares proudly but irrelevantly: "natural selection!".)


For over a century now, we have still not heard from the evolutionist the reason for the existence of '10'. In the absence of such explanation, all he is doing is working within the confines of a superset called "purpose" of which he is unaware. Accordingly, his argument is nothing more than a living corollary. It is redundant from the very start.

Hahaha! This is great!

 

[HRE]

Agh!

Get back, thou foul beast! Get thee back to hellish pits from whence thou came, or, if nothing else, a nunnery.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

9.5/10 for Creationist hilarity.

 

[funyun]

OK, no more posting in here. If I thought providing a link to this thread would have meant people would post in it, I wouldn't have done it. Please do't revive this garbage.

 

[RoboMastodon]

I'll reupload the images... if I can find them.

 

[drunkard]

Klaatu Verata Nicto!

Vile beast from the depths of C&E Hell, I command thee to rise again!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Klaatu Verata Nicto!

Vile beast from the depths of C&E Hell, I command thee to rise again!

No! Back! Do not wake the Great Dreamer!

Sigh, too late.

Cthulhu awakens...




(seriously though, I read the first two pages, and now my sides actually hurt. That's only happened twice before, both when I was drunk Good times)

 

[Maxwell511]

The historian builds his platform on a logical redundancy.
When you ask him how such and such an event happened, he will answer you with a description of the events leading up to it, and suggest that other events did not occur due to the momentum of historical forces. As we have pointed out, his position is summed up by the parody "San Diego", which is in German "a whale's vagina".

But historians have trouble reading words, so this post is designed to put the issue into a simple numerical framework.

Let us use the number '3' to represent WW1.
Let us use the number '4' to represent the Treaty of Versaille.
Let us use the number '1' to represent a catalytic situation, let's say the Great Depression, on route to the number '5'.
Let us use the number '5' to represent an intermediary stage after '4', the rise of Facism in Germany.
Let us use the number '10' to represent WW2.



The dialogue:
Last Thursdayist: "why did '10' happen?"
Historian: "because '4' stopped '3'. However it combined with '1' to form '5', instead of having to combining with let's say '1000000000000000000000'".
Last Thursdayist: "so?"
Historian: "so '5' was bad because it led onto '10'!".
Last Thursdayist: "but that is only so because '10' was caused by '5'! Why is it that '10' existed in the first place? How did '4' know combing with '1' it would cause '5' and lead on to '10'?"

(The historian, realising there is something missing in his reasoning at this point, but not really wanting to find out what, immediately invokes his higher-than-usual evolved thought-blocking ability, and declares proudly but irrelevantly: "the forces of History".)


For over a few hours now, we have still not heard from the historian the reason for the ability of '4' to "know" how to produce '10' through a combination of '1' which was apparently 20 years after it. In the absence of such explanation, all he is doing is working within the confines of a superset called "purpose" of which he is unaware. Accordingly, his argument is nothing more than a living corollary. It is redundant from the very start.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Mother of doG, why was this thread resurrected?