STUFF

How can it be old? O.o

Awesome! Great work

Yup, bar looks a lot better now, But seems to be going over the 1emu logo. Then again I think that's how it was before.

Looks great dude The whole top layout can be a little confusing at first. But that's just a matter of getting used to it. Then again I just woke up so anything confuses me. No but seriously, great job.

A big congratulations to all of you!!! May there be more

He's had that same IP since at least October. Used it in my forum on October 17th.

No offence but seriously, sometimes I don't know who is the bigger idiot. Him for doing it, or all the people that get so pissed off about him doing it. While you guys are all pissed off, he's probably just going thru life as usual and has a nice laugh when he reads your comments. And comments like "he needs to get laid", come on, what are you? 12? If people would quit giving him so much attention maybe he wouldn't find it fun to flock with you all.

Don't really see an option for me here. Some people would say I am shy. But I HATE being called shy, because I am not shy. I however AM a high functioning autistic. But I can understand how some people would see that as shy. It's just not a correct conclusion. In High school I was always very neutral, an I still am now. I had plenty of friends in the "cool people" group. And I had plenty of friends in the "Geek" group. At lunch time I would always just try to sit on my own. Being Autistic, the fact that I had to be around so many people was bad enough. But someone would always come and sit with me, be it one of the "cool" guys or the "geeks". I've never been a "Ladies man". When I see a woman I like, I like her but I don't necesarily want to go and flock her. However I've had a few girlfriends. All of them women I really cared about. You see, I only ask a woman out when I've known her for a while and I know I would like to have a serious relationship with her. Finally, I find it really sad to see comments about how getting laid is what matters. I'm 27 years old and when I was 18 I made a promise to God and myself, that I would not have sex until I found the woman I would love to spend the rest of my life with. Do I regret this decision? No I don't. It is hard, I wont lie. Specially when the chance shows up, it is SO hard to turn it down. It even sucks more when your girl leaves you because you wont do it. LOL a woman leaving a man cuz he wont have sex with her. Aint that some crap.

What ever happened with the story of him being the one who caused mame.dk to shut down? Did we ever find out if that was true or not? I myself had some good times over there. But that place would easily bring out the worst in people. I myself was banned a few times because I would try to argue stuff with Tim. He would always talk a lot of BS, and when someone would prove him wrong that person ended up banned.

Normally I don't eat burgers at fast food joints. If I'm going to Mc Donalds, I tend to go for a chicken sandwich. Although when I'm hungry and short on cash, I love the $1 menu. However, if I want a burger, I'd rather go to a restaurant like Famous Daves. If I can't a afford a Real Burger, then I go to a place like Culvers. If want something better but want it fast, I'll do Burger King. And if I'm in a REAL hurry, then I'll do McDonalds. Just because there is probably 10 in a square mile. When I want a Good burger, and I have the time, I'd rather make my own. 75% Ground Beef 25% Ground Pork Onions 1 or 2 eggs Worcestershire Sauce Mix it all up in a bowl, make burgers. Oh and screw those "burger buns". I hate those, I don't know who decided that burgers HAD to be in burger buns. Use some good bread, bake some bread, if you can't bake bread and can't find some good bread at least pick up some french bread, you can find that everywhere. Toas the bread first if you'd like. Ah.... anyway, yea, that was a nasty looking burger. I mean, I normally like mine a little pink but damm.

So... ah..... how about them Packers? *hides*

Ok Gryph. Allow me to apologize. You are right, your response to MY post was indeed civil. But it's also going further in a direction that I do not want to go. I mean, we could argue about Creation being science or not for ever and not get anywhere. You say the Flood left no evidence. I say the evidence is all over the place. Hell even the fossils show evidence to me. How you can see fossils of birds that got burried in a flying position. Something must have covered that bird up pretty fast. But that's the conclusion I'd come to. An evolutionist would come to his own conclusion and probably say that the bird died there in that position and was left like that for thousands of years. No one touched it or anything, it was just there and that's how it got covered up. Or something like that. The grand canyon, the oil that we have, dinosaurs being gone all of a sudden, these are all things that we see as results of the flood. Which again, wasn't all just a little rainning as some places make it sound. In my opinion this had to be the largest storm ever in the history of the world. But you have your opinions, and I respect them. You see, in my opinion Evolutionists twist science so that it applies to them. I mean, they find flesh and blood cells in a Trex bone and they decide to say that it is 70 Million years old. Now, come on, 70 Million years old? Do they even realize how long 70 Million years would be? Assuming that earth had been around that long, Would there really be any blood cells or flesh in this bone? To me, that is just wrong. I see the science in it, I see that they found a bone with flesh and blood cells. The fact. It happened, they found it, it's there. But in my opinion, the fact that they've found this bone like this only means that maybe that anymal wasn't around THAT long ago. But for you, you most probably have your own reasons to believe that it IS 70 Million years old. And hey, that's cool. You believe what you want, and I will believe what I want. Either way, the only thing that can be proven is the fact that the bone was found. Same goes with most evolution theories. You can't prove them. You can give examples of what may seem like evolution, something like the Liger. Getting a tiger and a lion together and making a Liger. That just proves variation within a kind. It's not a new kind of animal, it's still a cat, just a different kind of cat. Same with the whalphin (or whatever they call it). Dolphins and Whales are the same kind of animal. I've seen cases where scientists actually are able to record something happen in 10 years that should happen in 1000 years according to them, and they say that this was just a fluke. Now, here you have proof that it happened in 10 years, but you decide to say it's a fluke because it is supposed to happen in 1000 years?

I just don't like people who start doing name calling in a debate no matter what is said. And Grypho, I did read your post, but like I said, you are not the kind of person I want to debate with. Not if that's the kind of attitude you will have. But if it'll make you sleep better tonight, then sure, say you won, I don't really care

Gryphon obviously you can not respect anyones opinions if they are different from yours and you resort to name calling. So I'm not even going to bother talking to you anymore. I'm looking for people who can join a nice intelligent debate, and you aren't either nice or intelligent from what I see. As for the others. We keep going back to the point of IS creationist science Science? Again, two groups of people with different sets of beliefs. One group believes earth is Billions of years old. Another group believes earth is only thousands of years old. And there was a Flood. Now, one set of them will say there is no proof for the flood. The other set will say there is proof all over the place. Science is about experimenting and coming up with answers. Evolutionists come up with their answers. And some of them are extremely hard to believe. Creationists come up with their own answers and some of them are extremely hard to believe too. I'm not saying any one side is right or wrong. I mean you all know which side I agree with, but I"m not gonna say it. My point is science can be manipulated to work for you. How many times have we not seen full skelletons being built out of only a few pieces? Hell we had a full family of prehistoric humans being built out of a pigs tooth. Althought that one was SOO wrong that evolutionists admited it was wrong. But I know it's not the first time something like it happens and it's not the last time either.

But see, here we are going back to saying creation is not science. When there are also scientists who are creationists. We use Science. We just have very different views of what caused something. In a way they both need faith. Evolutionists believe in a big bang. Nothing blew up and created everything. Now, not ALL evolutionists believe in it, but most do, and it is yet another thing that is taught in our public classrooms as fact instead of Theories. Creationists believe in a Flood. The flood is what makes the greatest difference here. When scientists don't take God into consideration, they are not taking the flood into consideration. And that would change everything. On one side you have a group of scientists that do their research believing that earth has been around for Billions of years. And has slowly been changing. On the other side you have a group of scientists that do their research believing that earth hasn't been around that long, and that there was a flood which caused a great disturbance in the world. And different creationists scientists have their own version of just how the flood happened. But they believe there was a flood. Just like different Evolution scientists have their own version of how it all began. So we go back to the main subject. Why is one considered to be Science and the other one isn't? Now, lets go a little into the christians can go to private school and learn creation. Well, Not all Christians can afford private school. And even if I sent my kids to private school, the goverment would still charge me for Public schools. Why should a Christian father be paying money so that the goverment can deteriorate his kids belief in God? But the same could be said about an Atheist. Why should they pay so that the Goverment can make their kids learn about something that has to do with God? So it all comes down to Choice. Should the goverment be giving us only part of the theory? Should they only be showing us one side of the argument? or should they be letting us know of all sides and then allow us to choose whatever we want? Or maybe such controversial things should just be left for the parents and these "Theories" should just plain not be taught and only teach that which has been proven without any doubt? But then the parents wouldn't really do a very good job at giving us all sides of the story either. They would just show us what they want.