Search Results | KH-Vids | Your ultimate source for Kingdom Hearts media

[20:36:47] *** Aylah ღ has changed the conversation topic to "[20:36:06] Kelly: bullshit. making fun of my moans and my craving for something hot..inside me." ***
[20:36:57] Midnight Star: xDD
[20:37:29] Kelly: RISK
[20:37:34] Aylah ღ: KELLY
[20:37:45] Kelly: sdnthh
[20:37:49] Kelly: ;_; change that back
Click to expand...

Hai /KHV/

Post by: rikusorakairiown, Apr 2, 2012 in forum: The Playground

Post

I have the abilities of Master Chief... What about you?

Wingly said: ↑

But if it says handcuffed for life, he would still have to drag around your dead body because he would still be alive. So wouldn't you be better trying to help while alive?
Click to expand...

I am not a very practical person.

Post by: rikusorakairiown, Apr 2, 2012 in forum: The Spam Zone

Post

I have the abilities of Master Chief... What about you?

Handcuffed for life to sam fisher?

.. I'd probably be shot so he can get on with his job ;_;

Post by: rikusorakairiown, Apr 2, 2012 in forum: The Spam Zone

Post

Last person to post ѶḬḮ

[06:07:20] Makaze: Dear Makaze,

In note of your recent behavior, and the knowledge of account sharing, we have decided to take action. The following will take effect within the time of reading this Private Message (if no indication of reading or reply is noted, the sanction will still take effect)

A temporary banishment that spans the length of three (3) weeks. Due to the following reasons:
Account Sharing
Poor treatment of other members
Frequent instances of Inappropriate Content posting

We hope this will serve as a time to reflect upon your past actions, and that when the allotted time has passed, you will return with a better disposition.
Click to expand...

dis here be filler yo.

Post by: rikusorakairiown, Apr 1, 2012 in forum: The Playground

Post

Last person to post ѶḬḮ

hey guys

Makaze's temp banned

/flee

Post by: rikusorakairiown, Apr 1, 2012 in forum: The Playground

Thread

Hey /KHV/

[You're an fagit.]

<3

Thread by: rikusorakairiown, Mar 28, 2012, 3 replies, in forum: The Spam Zone

Post

Last person to post ѶḬḮ

*walk in*

*see the thread has degenerated to posting terrible, unfunny, or badly lipsynced images*

*leave*

Post by: rikusorakairiown, Mar 22, 2012 in forum: The Playground

Post

Last person to post ѶḬḮ

Tony Stark said: ↑

Hulk = RISK

Click to expand...

I DEMAND to be Dr.Doom

Post by: rikusorakairiown, Mar 12, 2012 in forum: The Playground

Post

Last person to post ѶḬḮ

Korosu said: ↑

go away, you meanieface. :c
Click to expand...

.. 'kay

Post by: rikusorakairiown, Mar 11, 2012 in forum: The Playground

Post

Last person to post ѶḬḮ

hey khv.

Post by: rikusorakairiown, Mar 11, 2012 in forum: The Playground

Post

What I feel when arguing evolution with creationists.

Boy Wonder said: ↑

I don't see why the difference matters.
When does the line between having an opinion, stating your opinion, and acting on opinion become relevant?
Click to expand...

having one doesn't affect others. Stating and acting upon it can.

Post by: rikusorakairiown, Feb 29, 2012 in forum: The Spam Zone

Post

What I feel when arguing evolution with creationists.

[CC] Noroz said: ↑

The points made can be proven the other way as well.
EVIDENCE 1: The universe could NOT have created itself nor has it always existed

Well, according to religion, God has always existed. What is the difference there then?

The very nature of a deity implies that it is it's own cause, while there an be no evidence for or against this for obvious reasons, it is prima facie that the universe required a cause, which required a cause and so forth, ergo, something must have been its own cause in order to begin the cause and effect cycle
Click to expand...

EVIDENCE 2: The Second Law of Thermodynamics says no!

This is not true. It is a preposterous comparison. No one claimed evolution to become more organized.

Lenski's E-Coli experiment
Click to expand...

EVIDENCE 3. Living Things Never Arise from Non-living Things

Abiogenesis/Spontaneous Generation.

Abiogensis requires a beginning point which is heavily rich in ammonia, in order to create the amino acids required for the necessary proteins, however, the generally accepted picture of proto-eart is currently one dominated by nitrogen and oxygen, and oxygen largely inhibits the development of proteins (iirc, I may be wrong on that)
Click to expand...

EVIDENCE 4: Complex Systems do not evolve 'bit by bit'

They may.

This is simply not true, there are numerous organisms which simple could not survive without their current biological structure, and therefore could not have been created via the current theory of evolution due to the fact they would DIE. To add onto this, such things as cell signalling and the active and allosteric sites require a complete system in order for them to work, in conjunction with induced fit and lock and key hypotheses, however, before they developed it would have been impossible for cells to interact with each other which would render multiple organisms DEAD.
Click to expand...

EVIDENCE 5: The Missing Links are Still Missing

Well, first of all, whoever wrote this have no right to say evolutionists are missing evidence.

You are avoiding the point, the point is that many darwinists say that the current theory of evolution has perfectly explained how something took place, yet it doesn't, currently the biggest argument against the idea of missing links being a possible cursor towards evolution being insufficient is the discovery of the archaeopyteryx, which appears to begin to bridge the gap between birds and reptiles, however, there is still a lack of "bridges" to comprise a compelling argument. One cannot convict a murder on one piece of evidence when the rest is missing.
Click to expand...

Also;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

EVIDENCE 7: Probability Facts are also contrary to Evolution

This objection is fundamentally an argument by lack of imagination, or argument from incredulity: a certain explanation is seen as being counter-intuitive, and therefore an alternate, more intuitive explanation is appealed to instead. Supporters of evolution generally respond by arguing that evolution is not based on "chance", but on predictable chemical interactions: natural processes, rather than supernatural beings, are the "designer". Although the process involves some random elements, it is the non-random selection of survival-enhancing genes that drives evolution along an ordered trajectory.

Modern evolution runs on the concept of random selection for the most part, which would mean it is completely random, however this isn't the viewpoint you're arguing so that should be dismissed for now. I have to admit this is the first time I've seen it put this way, and it made sense, untill I remembered that evolution happens as a mistake in said chemical reactions, not a a predictable outcome, and dystopia, is random.
Click to expand...

If you told me you were a creationist that believed in evolution, I would call you a liar. You either believe that God created humans like we are now, or you don't. If what you are getting at is intelligent design, that is, in my opinion, closer to the truth, but still wrong.

Who said creationists always believe God created humans as they are? This is an extremely important point that John Norman addressed in detail regarding the definition of the word creationist and design, and how general ignorance and new atheisitc- giants have twisted them into something they're not. It's also the reason I even posted in this thread to begin with.

Due to modern influences the common misconception that creationism means "someone who believes the creation story of the Bible literally " has become more and more apparent. This however is a completely different thing called Genesis Fundamentalism, and is also covered in general Bible Fundamentalism, fundamentalism being the taking of a piece of scripture literally and as having no allegorical meaning. This is often put as "people who write the books are clever, but the people who read them are idiots". In its truest meaning, the meaning that would have been given to you by a philosophical writer, theologian, or any such thing, or by someone 50 or so years ago, is that a creationist is someone who "believes that the universe is the product of a supernatural outside force"sadly however, misinformation and bias has twisted it into being regarded as the same joke that is fundamentalism.

The misconception of intelligent design (which, gladly I believe you have seen through) is similar to the one you have offered for creationism, the the Christian God designed everything as it is in its current state and plopped it into being. Luckily this is much less common than the misinterpretation of creationism. The idea of intelligent design revolves around just that, intelligent design, that the universe has been designed by an intelligent being, and in no way infers that it had to be designed in its current state only, it perfectly allows for an evolving design which changes over time, from the beginning to now to whatever comes next, the argument of Paley's watch, while being an incredibly efficient explanation of design theory, especially when put together with the argument of henry fords cars sadly don't clarify this point, as it states that the designer must have designed the wathc or engine respectively, but not mentioning things like earlier models or some such to clarify that it does not apply only to that particular stage of design.

I am often greatly irritated by the misconcepts of the whole "science vs religion" thing, especial the misconception that they are mutually exclusive, which is simply wrong, for example I am a creationist who believes the world was designed to follow an evolutionary path, I simply do not believe that the theory of evolution in its current state is close enough to the truth.
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'm hungry and these pistachios aren't helping ;_;

Post by: rikusorakairiown, Feb 29, 2012 in forum: The Spam Zone

Post

What I feel when arguing evolution with creationists.

Noroz the Spiderkiller said: ↑

Footer says;
Copyright Â© 2012 Changing Lives - Real Life True Stories - Christian Testimonies. All Rights Reserved.

Bias.

Screw Britain, I'll do it for you <3
Click to expand...

If it wasn't written by a christian would you say it wasn't bias?

Regardless of bias, which can be ignored since it is openly stated that it only shows one side of the argument, the points are fine. The fact that simply because it is written by a christian you have completely ignored all argument makes you seem, for lack of a better term. Ignorant and narrow minded.

What if I told you I was a creationist that SUPPORTS evolution?

Post by: rikusorakairiown, Feb 29, 2012 in forum: The Spam Zone