|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 06/22/2004 : 21:24:05 [Permalink]
|
verlch wrote:quote:
he who has not sinned cast the first stone. Jesus said that when they were trying to stone Him.
Holy crap. You come here, claiming to be hip to God's Word, and yet you don't know the freaking story! John 8 starts:Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And to further ensure that we know that you know nothing of the Bible, you say,quote:
Now your making assumptions... I didn't cheat on her, where did you jump to that one Dave?
Yet according to Jesus, in Mark 10:11:And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. So, since you got divorced, and married another, you're an adulterer, period. Jesus freakin' Christ said so. I didn't assume squat, except that what you told me was true.quote:
Do as you please...It's your free will man, we all are given free will....
Which is irrelevant to your judgement of me. You know, for a person who claims to break as few of the Commandments as possible, you sure are bending a lot of them.quote:
Some of those 200 assertions are taken out of context...while I was exaggerating a point. Nobody seems to care about that!!!!
I do, but since you haven't even tried to defend any of them adequately, your intended context is meaningless. Some of them are in the list specifically so you could say, "that's not what I meant," or "I was just exaggerating," but you haven't done any of that. In other words, you haven't engaged in any discussion. Your posts are worthless, except perhaps for the entertainment value of seeing you demonstrate yourself to be less than the Christian you implied you were. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2004 : 22:48:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You can't see the wind, but you can feel it. What is wind, guys? And why can't we see it? It's an invisible force, doing good (a cooling breeze) or doing evil...(knocking over buildings in a flood of chaos).
gratuitous assertion.... I'm sure it's over 200 now..... |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2004 : 22:49:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So, since you got divorced, and married another, you're an adulterer, period. Jesus freakin' Christ said so. I didn't assume squat, except that what you told me was true.
Well I didn't ask her to leave, she left on her own free will! And she tryed and lie about all kinds of stuff on the way out! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
gm137
New Member
United Kingdom
14 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2004 : 23:11:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Verlch
You can't see the wind, but you can feel it. What is wind, guys? And why can't we see it? It's an invisible force, doing good (a cooling breeze) or doing evil...(knocking over buildings in a flood of chaos).
I don't think the 140 mph wind that blows down a house has any more autonomy than the 5mph breeze that cools you. These effects do happen (they are observable and quantifiable), but I can't see any evidence to suggest that they are a designed 'product', they're merely the manifestations of nature interacting with man - winds can still blow where humans don't exist, e.g. the Sulphuric acid hurricanes on Venus.
As for 'what is wind?' - as far as we understand it, wind is a result of having a finite mass of air in the atmosphere. This means that when a body of air at the earth's surface is warmed (by the Sun) and rises, an equivalent volume of cold air moves in to replace it. More general 'prevailing winds' are attributable to areas containing considerable themal energy on the surface of the planet (eg Gulf stream), and to the effect of the earth's rotation on the large mass of gas that forms the atmosphere.
|
The name's Bond; Ionic bond. |
| Edited by - gm137 on 06/22/2004 23:17:48 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 01:46:48 [Permalink]
|
Verlch, your problem, and this has been stated before, is that you make bold assertions of things that you know nothing about, and then when called on it, and you will be called every time on this board, you not only provide no supporting argument, but you go on to make more assertions, most of them ridiculous. And upon things you know nothing about, yet again. #44 is a prime example. You blared out a crap claim that you probably picked up from ICR, or some such place. After having a little fun with it, I refuted it. You have yet to come up with even a comment on the topic, let alone a rebuttal. Therefore, as you cannot or will not rebut, I win the debate by default. Yay me. :applause from the cheap seats:
Incidently, if anyone else wants to take on the refutatiuon of #44, I'm still willing to argue it. 'Tis again 4:00 AM and I could use the intellectual wake-up. Coffee just doesn't seem to have the punch it used to, even the oily, all-but-poisonous sludge I make. 
Now, I am an atheist. Further, I am an atheist who really doesn't much care about someone else's faith, however unlikely it might appear to me. Believe what you wish. However, as I and others see it, you are letting faith blind you to fact. That's baaad shit, my man.
Now then, before you blither out yet another another fractured fable, do study the subject a little first. That way, you can actually have a conversation. Conversations are cool, especally when you know what you're talking about. 
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 07:59:38 [Permalink]
|
verlch wrote:quote:
Well I didn't ask her to leave, she left on her own free will! And she tryed and lie about all kinds of stuff on the way out!
You're not real good at this Christianity thing, are you? It certainly isn't about who sins less. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 09:56:01 [Permalink]
|
Since Verlich seems incapable of supporting his assumptions, I am going to demonstrate for him how it can be done.
quote:
Bold assertion #44
Carbon dating is so error-prone that it is fair to call it fiction.
I think the biggest problem with the use of C14 for dating is that the begining level of C14 must be estimated.
quote:
"It is calculated on the assumption that the atmospheric radiocarbon concentration has always been the same as it was in 1950 and that the half-life of radiocarbon is 5568 years."
Taken from http://www.rlaha.ox.ac.uk/orau/calibration.html#radiocarbon
Clearly, this is an assumption that cannot be proven. I know that the C14 dating can be 'proven' for the last 11,000 years by correlating C14 to overlapping tree ring data. But before that we cannot know the level of the C14 was.
Another site admitted that the level changes:
quote:
Fourth, the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere is not constant. Although it was originally thought that there has always been about the same ratio, radiocarbon samples taken and cross dated using other techniques like dendrochronology have shown that the ratio of C-14 to C-12 has varied significantly during the history of the Earth. This variation is due to changes in the intensity of the cosmic radiation bombardment of the Earth, and changes in the effectiveness of the Van Allen belts and the upper atmosphere to deflect that bombardment. http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Chronology/08_Radiocarbon_Dating.html
The site indicates that the date must be adjusted or calibrated.
I still maintain that we cannot know what the C14 level was, say 20,000 years ago.
Cosmic radiation bombards atoms in the upper atmosphere and frees up some neutrons from the atoms. C14 is produced by a one of these neutrons combining with the nucleus of a N14 atom and then (immediately) ejecting a proton to form C14. http://www.rlaha.ox.ac.uk/orau/sources.html
Therefore the concentration of C14 is proportional to the level of the cosmic radiation.
We know that there have been a wild fluctuations in the climate over the past 50,000 years. There is no clear answer to what drove these fluctuations. If the climate was driven by changes in the energy output of the sun then that would indicate that the cosmic radiation also varied which would in turn cause the level of the C14 production and equilibrium to vary.
A PBS NOVA site stated the following:
quote:
Although the exact causes for ice ages, and the glacial cycles within them, have not been proven, they are most likely the result of a complicated dynamic interaction between such things as solar output, distance of the Earth from the sun, position and height of the continents, ocean circulation, and the composition of the atmosphere.[My emphasis]. Taken from this site http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html
There is no way I can accept the accuracy of Carbon dating based on the fact that there is no way we can know the level of C14 in the past and therefore cannot have a starting point for the radioactive decay.
(edited to change beta decay with proton decay)
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 06/23/2004 10:03:34 |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 09:58:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
verlch wrote:quote:
Well I didn't ask her to leave, she left on her own free will! And she tryed and lie about all kinds of stuff on the way out!
You're not real good at this Christianity thing, are you? It certainly isn't about who sins less.
I'm not trying to sin less man, I am saying that according to Mosianic belief I can give my wife a certificate of divorece if she isn't a good wife, even if my heart is hardened!!! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 10:05:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I do, but since you haven't even tried to defend any of them adequately, your intended context is meaningless. Some of them are in the list specifically so you could say, "that's not what I meant," or "I was just exaggerating," but you haven't done any of that. In other words, you haven't engaged in any discussion. Your posts are worthless, except perhaps for the entertainment value of seeing you demonstrate yourself to be less than the Christian you implied you were.
Well I think most of the assertions are for a good laugh, as to say look Verlch is a bigger idiot than he was yesterday. Heck I get a good chuckle out of most of them...Defending them seems to be fruitless, you mock the sites and claim they are all lies and I am the biggest liar of the liars...So unless I can go to a spirt medium and call up Charles Darwin(A demon, impersonating dead human), whom will you believe? |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 10:16:33 [Permalink]
|
verlch wrote:quote:
I'm not trying to sin less man, I am saying that according to Mosianic belief I can give my wife a certificate of divorece if she isn't a good wife, even if my heart is hardened!!!
So you're trying to be a good Jew? I thought you claimed to be a Christian. Jesus Christ said that if you divorce your wife and marry another, you are an adulterer. There's no getting around this with appeals to Leviticus, since Jesus specifically said that that particular law no longer applies because he won't tolerate hard-hearted men anymore.
Divorce and remarriage is unacceptable to your Lord and Saviour. Deal with it.quote:
...Defending them seems to be fruitless, you mock the sites and claim they are all lies...
No, the sites for which you've provided links don't support your claims. If you'd rather change your claims to match those on the sites, we will demonstrate why those claims are based upon falsehoods regarding the theory of evolution. We don't just claim they are full of lies, we can show it (and have, in a couple of cases already).
Any claims you'd like to retract due to having made them just for laughs or for rhetorical effect, just say the word. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 10:20:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Meths, I would guess! By the way, when you say 'what my neurons where firing upon.' I asume you mean were and I also assume you meant the past tense, 'cause they don't appear to be firing anymore!!
You silly Brit...Don't you have more silly and more uptight things to complain about than my neurons [sic]...And how they are firing!!! Don't you have some bloking tea to bloke and football house!!!
Well my grandfather was over there during wwII. He had many British girlfriends!!! He dated lots and lots and lots of British women!!!!
|
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 11:40:15 [Permalink]
|
| My spell check on here doesn't work, so you tell me!!! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
gm137
New Member
United Kingdom
14 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 11:43:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
My spell check on here doesn't work, so you tell me!!!
He just did: 'Neurons'. |
The name's Bond; Ionic bond. |
| Edited by - gm137 on 06/23/2004 11:44:33 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
