It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 434
31
<< 431  432  433    435  436  437 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Oh dear you have a lot still to learn. You have used the external box which signifies you are quoting from an external source. You obviously are not.
AH HA, so you admitt there is a definition there.

Well now we are getting somewhere.

You see colin I knew that by posting it in the EX box that you would rant about it being wrong, but inadvertantly admitting that I have shared the definition. Of course there is no link, I'm providing the definition.

It's only a violation if material is not quoted properly, and in this case there is no material because I wrote it.




When using the external text box you are supposed to provide a link to the source. Seeing as though it is all your opinion you cannot obviously. Let us say you have made a mistake because the other option is you are again being dishonest.
Actually neither.




Not only have you lost this debate on balance many times: 'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'
If things don't have balance, whats a species going to eat colin?




First a food will be natural, natural is anything organic that is not made or caused by humankind, per its definition.

This is your opinion again. 'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'
This all works under the basis that the planets were prepared with everything needed in mind, not leaving things open to only work with human adaptation.




Second a target food will be a main supplement to a species, and could be observed as the only food, but might just be a larger part of a larger menu.

We already have Staple diet that is defined and which is fully understood. Your poorly constructed drivel above comes nowhere close to afford the same understanding. Also: 'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'
You couldn't possibly share what that is exactly could you?




Third a target food might not have an easy substitute for a species. While this could prove more about extinction, adaptation and intervention, substitutes have to be considered. If a substitution has been made it will probably not be as great of a benefit to the species as the original food. A clue that might help identify a substitute is redundant adaptation to utilize that food source.

You have you tried to sneak in 'redundant adaption' another of your made up terms you refused to define or debate the use of. 'Your term is not accepted in this thread. Alas 'You have also not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'
Meh, I know now why you reject terms, because they are the toughest terms that stand up against the flimsy idea of evolution. You should not accept them, as they cannont accept evolution.




Fourth, extinction must be considered when considering target food. It is possible that extinction could cause a species to be out of food, as well as co-extinction. Which is not an automatic excuse for claiming intervention.. If a species looks elsewhere for food because of a collapse, that could knock off the food balance of several other species as well. This is why extinctions are not normal or natural.

Utter unsupported garbage again. I thought this was meant to be defining what target food is not your uneducated opinion using your made up terms.
What an epic let down. What a tragic failure. 'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'
Well your looking for proof of the validity of the terms, not the definitions of the terms. So its changed now. Well either way they exist, and its up to each reader to validate them if they want to. Everyone I'm sure will form their own opinion.

It's my opinion of what I want the definition to stand for, and there is no wrong or right colin, I wrote it so it can be what ever I want it to be.




posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Either way your being dishonest.

What do you mean, either way I am being dishonest? I was quoting you using the correct format in English grammar. Just because you have so little education you did not recognise that is your problem not mine. You made a fool of yourself but that is nothing unusual for you. Get over it.
Well then it would probably be a better idea if you quote what your talking about.

I was obviously referring to something else.




Why would you use my made up term, actually several times then turn around later and claim that you don't accept it?

How else would I get my point across that your term was nonsense. 'Tooth that made up word that I won’t use as it will mean I have accepted it, is nonsense' or Tooth 'target food' is nonsense'? You really suck at this don’t you
Even by saying that, your still admitting that you have viewed the definition. So how are you going to go back now and say I never gave one.




You accepted it at first, but later on after you realized that it exposed a major flaw in the site of evolution, you just couldn't have that, so you made up the excuse that you will no longer accept it.

Nope. And no matter how you spin it I have never accepted it. You use the word evolution. Does that mean you accept it? As for your nonsense term 'target food' exposing a flaw in evolution I suggest you go learn about evolution. I refer you back to all these 400+ pages.
I accept the term evolution, which doesn't mean I accept it as your understand it. There is a difference.




Good move, it shows how dishonest you have been all along.

It actually showcases your ignorance on many levels. The reason why the written word is so far out of your grasp to achieve any form of understanding when writing or reading. Why evolution is way above your level of understanding even when it is described at its most basic level.
Again your making assumptions, which you like to do, assuming I don't understand evolution. Your idea is that if I did in fact understand it, I would agree with it. What you keep failing to realize is that I do actually accept evolution based on what all I have read, it is YOUR interpratation of it that I don't accept.




Rather than reaching for things to find the truth, becasue they don't fit evolution, you try to hide them in dishonesty.

They call that 'transferred guilt'. That is your ethos, not mine.


Your going to have to repost it so I know what your talking about.

What for a 5th time? Jeeze
You did it first and I don't know.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



AH HA, so you admitt there is a definition there.

Well now we are getting somewhere.
The only place you are getting is desperation. Where is the definition and where did I admit it?


Oh dear you have a lot still to learn. You have used the external box which signifies you are quoting from an external source. You obviously are not.
Your reading ability is beyond terrible.



You see colin I knew that by posting it in the EX box that you would rant about it being wrong, but inadvertantly admitting that I have shared the definition. Of course there is no link, I'm providing the definition.
Oh I see so you set a trap and the rat it caught was you
Classic



It's only a violation if material is not quoted properly, and in this case there is no material because I wrote it.
I did not even call it a violation
Jeeze did you even read it?
I explained how you SHOULD use EX-TEXT.


If things don't have balance, whats a species going to eat colin?
I refer you back to the times you lost this point and these 400+ pages. You don’t get it do you. You are either going to start entering into meaningful debate or you are going to get stone walled. The choice is yours.



This all works under the basis that the planets were prepared with everything needed in mind, not leaving things open to only work with human adaptation.
'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'


You couldn't possibly share what that is exactly could you?
What are you raving about now? If you mean staple diet what do you think those glowing green words were Staple diet



Meh, I know now why you reject terms, because they are the toughest terms that stand up against the flimsy idea of evolution. You should not accept them, as they cannont accept evolution.
Why don’t you ever read what I write? I reject them because they have no meaning. You made them up and you change what you imply they mean every time they are challenged. You cannot and will not define them.

'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'


Well your looking for proof of the validity of the terms, not the definitions of the terms. So its changed now.
Nope. Your reading skills, really. I never mentioned validity. I asked for the definition of those made up terms



Well either way they exist, and its up to each reader to validate them if they want to.
That may be how it works in your fantasy La La land but not here. You made up the terms you define them. You want us to guess to allow you to keep moving the goalposts. It is not going to happen.


Everyone I'm sure will form their own opinion.
You have spent many pages telling posters that you do not want their opinion you want facts. Why are you exempt?


It's my opinion of what I want the definition to stand for, and there is no wrong or right colin, I wrote it so it can be what ever I want it to be.
Precisely. But it is then on you to let others know the meanings of those made up terms because you have shown many times if you do not then they change. They are whatever you want them to be but not whatever you want them to be, whenever you want them to be. Definition



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





AH HA, so you admitt there is a definition there.

Well now we are getting somewhere.

The only place you are getting is desperation. Where is the definition and where did I admit it?
Well that is where things go when I have to deal with an incredulous dishonest person such as yourself.




Oh dear you have a lot still to learn. You have used the external box which signifies you are quoting from an external source. You obviously are not.

Your reading ability is beyond terrible.
Maybe but my BS detector just spiked as a result.




You see colin I knew that by posting it in the EX box that you would rant about it being wrong, but inadvertantly admitting that I have shared the definition. Of course there is no link, I'm providing the definition.

Oh I see so you set a trap and the rat it caught was you Classic
Nope, it caught you and caught you well. Time after time that I would post definitions for target food and you could claim there is no definition so its not accepted. Now its there, you admitted to it, what are you going to say now?




If things don't have balance, whats a species going to eat colin?

I refer you back to the times you lost this point and these 400+ pages. You don’t get it do you. You are either going to start entering into meaningful debate or you are going to get stone walled. The choice is yours.
Your excuse that a species will eat someone elses food is not valid and not acceptable.




This all works under the basis that the planets were prepared with everything needed in mind, not leaving things open to only work with human adaptation.

'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'
I never expected you to agree, it would make evolution look pretty silly if you did. Evolution has a lot of answering to do thats for sure.




You couldn't possibly share what that is exactly could you?

What are you raving about now? If you mean staple diet what do you think those glowing green words were Staple diet
Could you give an example.




Meh, I know now why you reject terms, because they are the toughest terms that stand up against the flimsy idea of evolution. You should not accept them, as they cannont accept evolution.

Why don’t you ever read what I write? I reject them because they have no meaning. You made them up and you change what you imply they mean every time they are challenged. You cannot and will not define them.
I just did define them, and you allready admitted to that, so now what are you going to retract that?

Of course they are made up, I made them up, and there is nothing wrong with that. They can mean what ever I want them to mean, as I made them up. For example if I wanted the term "blueflail" to mean peter pan, thats my call.

I have issued definition of target food, so get over it. It hasn't changed, and it wont change, and there is no reason for it to change. Your not even able to offer any resistance to the term aside from simply not accepting it, that would suggest a need to change.

You lost that debate long ago get over it, or start coughing up some target food.




'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'
Definitions don't contain supporting evidence, they are what they are.

Here is a good start if your lost on understanding.
www.encyclo.co.uk...




Well your looking for proof of the validity of the terms, not the definitions of the terms. So its changed now.

Nope. Your reading skills, really. I never mentioned validity. I asked for the definition of those made up terms
There was just one for now, target food.




Well either way they exist, and its up to each reader to validate them if they want to.

That may be how it works in your fantasy La La land but not here. You made up the terms you define them. You want us to guess to allow you to keep moving the goalposts. It is not going to happen.
Well you want them to be converted into scientific terms, and I never said I was aiming for that. Granted that would be better, but you are welcome to challenge any of it, in fact I dare you.




Everyone I'm sure will form their own opinion.

You have spent many pages telling posters that you do not want their opinion you want facts. Why are you exempt?
I'm here if anyone can challenge them. All I hear is crickets.




It's my opinion of what I want the definition to stand for, and there is no wrong or right colin, I wrote it so it can be what ever I want it to be.

Precisely. But it is then on you to let others know the meanings of those made up terms b



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





It's my opinion of what I want the definition to stand for, and there is no wrong or right colin, I wrote it so it can be what ever I want it to be.

Precisely. But it is then on you to let others know the meanings of those made up terms because you have shown many times if you do not then they change. They are whatever you want them to be but not whatever you want them to be, whenever you want them to be. Definition
Well here we are hundreds of pages later, and they still haven't changed, so your being dishonest.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well then it would probably be a better idea if you quote what your talking about.
I did, 'This is how it works'. Because you don’t have a clue how to read it is not my problem. End of.


I was obviously referring to something else.
Nope you were wrong and like I already said 'You made a fool of yourself but that is nothing unusual for you. Get over it'.


Even by saying that, your still admitting that you have viewed the definition. So how are you going to go back now and say I never gave one.
No matter how you spin it, no matter how much you want it to be you cannot pretend I admitted viewing a definition you never provided.
==



I accept the term evolution, which doesn't mean I accept it as your understand it. There is a difference.
You have made it very clear that you reject the term evolution. You have made it abundantly obvious that you wilfully misunderstand what it describes. If you accept evolution, because it has been defined by science there is only one way to understand it. So your claim is again false.


Again your making assumptions, which you like to do, assuming I don't understand evolution.
That is not assuming. There is an abundance of evidence showing you do not understand evolution.


Your idea is that if I did in fact understand it, I would agree with it.
Nope. I have written many times I don’t care if you don’t agree with what evolution describes but after 400+ pages you should know what it describes. Calling it a bug or a creative force or maintaining it has intelligence is not understanding what evolution describes.


What you keep failing to realize is that I do actually accept evolution based on what all I have read, it is YOUR interpratation of it that I don't accept.
Hogwash. You have stated many times you will never accept evolution. You do not buy evolution and even have a quote in your sig. 'not evolving'. Don’t feed me that tripe and expect me to swallow it.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well that is where things go when I have to deal with an incredulous dishonest person such as yourself.
What utter garbage. You chose to take the dishonest route and the only reason for you calling me incredulous is because I won’t accept your dishonesty
Now show me the definition and where I admitted it from this:


Oh dear you have a lot still to learn. You have used the external box which signifies you are quoting from an external source. You obviously are not.
Your the only incredulous one here.


Maybe but my BS detector just spiked as a result.
I'm surprised you could read it



Nope, it caught you and caught you well. Time after time that I would post definitions for target food and you could claim there is no definition so its not accepted. Now its there, you admitted to it, what are you going to say now?
You have never defined 'target food'. You post my quotes i.e. 'target food' and claim victory. How immature. How desperate.



Your excuse that a species will eat someone elses food is not valid and not acceptable.
Read failure again: 'You have also not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'


Could you give an example.
You have the links. Read them.


I just did define them, and you allready admitted to that, so now what are you going to retract that?
Quote where I admitted it. You truly a dishonest person.

Looking further down your post you are just rehashing the post you made a fool of yourself in. I'll save your blushes

'You have also not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





It's my opinion of what I want the definition to stand for, and there is no wrong or right colin, I wrote it so it can be what ever I want it to be.

Precisely. But it is then on you to let others know the meanings of those made up terms because you have shown many times if you do not then they change. They are whatever you want them to be but not whatever you want them to be, whenever you want them to be. Definition
Well here we are hundreds of pages later, and they still haven't changed, so your being dishonest.
Nope hundreds of pages latter and you are still whining like a child (10 – 12 year old) because they have been rejected as undefined nonsense that you refused to define or debate their meaning. Get over it.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Well then it would probably be a better idea if you quote what your talking about.

I did, 'This is how it works'. Because you don’t have a clue how to read it is not my problem. End of.
No you didn't and I can copy and show you it all if you like...

What historical documentation is that?

While your all happy and laughing. Where is the retraction you owe me Or are you so dishonest that you cannot bring yourself to admit your error?
The bible and what error are you talking about?

If your referring to the bible not being clear, that depends on what sections your talking about. If your making an assumption that its all bad (which I'm sure you do) based on that, you are wrong.
A blatant lie again from you.

You wrote:


But you admitted yourself that through a process evolution is able to create new species


For the third time: I asked: Please quote where I wrote that and if you cannot please write a retraction of your dishonest statement. You cannot change my words to suit your argument.

You have failed to show the quote because you were once again being dishonest. Now retract your statement above.

There is no excuse for the level of dishonesty you have sunk too and you entered into this thread at a very low level of honesty to begin with.

Still I take it you are do not have the morals or self respect to retract your blatent lie. A very poor picture you paint of yourself that is displayed for all to see.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
I will post this again as your either missed it or decided not to see it.

reply to post by itsthetooth
 
4th time Are you ever going to address these points or should I drop it and take it I have again won this debate. Your know the price you will pay.


Well thats why it was chopped, so you would have no problem finding it, otherwise you may have scanned over it and missed it. Originally I just posted the link and you didn't find it that way either. Probably because you didn't see the need to read the whole page.
Nope. Its called Quote Mining

The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[
You cut it that way because you only looked at what supported your claim. You ignored all that did not even within the same paragraph and you are doing it still. Shockingly dishonest.


Granted it wasn't a headline, but they still quoted it, therefore its not a lie.
Nope quoting out of context the way you did is lying by omission.



Well I gave bible info allready, never gave Pye, sitchen, or von daniken, however all you would do once I did, was cherry pick informaton to try to discredit each of them, so why bother. You have allready done this and totally dismissed the rest of their work as invalid. You were apparently cherry picking long before I was.
The above does not constitute a logical argument with supporting evidence as is required.

'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'



As if only certain ones are going to be clear. They are all published under the title of the bible, thats good enough. You can only nit pic so much.
First you admit you do not know the origins and now you say in your opinion its good enough. News for you: 'Don’t know' and 'looks good enough to me' does not qualify your use of the bible as 'a clear historical document'. End of.


Actually your the one being dishonest, they made it clear they are assuming.
Agreed they made it clear. You on the other hand denied it. Now you changed your mind and claim it was me. Dishonesty of a child. (10 - 12 at best).


I wasn't trying to pass that off as straight findings, I was trying to tell you the same thing.
You know your dishonesty is the only tool you seem to have left. You replied to my argument, supported by a quote from YOUR link:


Looks like more of a reconstruction or a repair than anything else.
your link says 'Scholars surmise the original Greek text from the versions that do survive.' so you again was not trying to tell me the same thing. You were maintaining your dishonesty.

Word of mouth does not constitute a clear historical document.
Might have been passed down for 300 years by word of mouth does not constitute a firsthand witness or a reliable source for the bible we see today. Which alone makes it NOT a clear historical document which is why the religious scholars debate the meanings to this very day.


So if your trying to say that the bible is not 100% in order, I agree, I never claimed otherwise
Claiming the bible to be 'a clear historical document' is you claiming otherwise.

Also why did you ignore this point from your link that I asked you to comment on?

For many Christians the Bible is also infallible, in that it is incapable of error within matters of faith and practice. For example, that the Bible is free from error in spiritual but not necessarily in historic or scientific matters
Cherry picking what you will answer now are you? Please address this point as you should have.


Your making assumptions that the cherry picked sections are not in order. The fact is you don't know. So you cant win based on an assumption.
Do you have something that proves those sections to not be in order?
Explain. Your cherry picked sections? If you mean the bibles cherry picked sections then you are in even bigger trouble with your claim.





posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
Use the back button. Reply to my post that I explained I missed out your quote. Amended the original and asked you to respond

I take it from your continued avoidance you will not retract the lie you made. A very poor response from you but alas an expected one as you have zero credibility on this thread


edit on 30-6-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





4th time Are you ever going to address these points or should I drop it and take it I have again won this debate. Your know the price you will pay.
I have told you three times now you will have to repost them, and its your choice but you just keep ignoring me.




Nope. Its called Quote Mining
Well there has to be a dark hidden meaning behind everything doesn't there.




The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[
You cut it that way because you only looked at what supported your claim. You ignored all that did not even within the same paragraph and you are doing it still. Shockingly dishonest.
And if there was anything that disagreed with my claim, I would agree with you, but there isn't, so I don't.




Granted it wasn't a headline, but they still quoted it, therefore its not a lie.

Nope quoting out of context the way you did is lying by omission.
How is it out of context? It looks good to me so your claim is not valid.




The above does not constitute a logical argument with supporting evidence as is required.

'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'
I seriously doubt that you claiming Pye to be a fraudster cuts it.




First you admit you do not know the origins and now you say in your opinion its good enough. News for you: 'Don’t know' and 'looks good enough to me' does not qualify your use of the bible as 'a clear historical document'. End of.
What are you ignorant? All origins are historical, OMG.




Actually your the one being dishonest, they made it clear they are assuming.

Agreed they made it clear. You on the other hand denied it. Now you changed your mind and claim it was me. Dishonesty of a child. (10 - 12 at best).
Once again, your dishonesty is chocking you up. I never changed my mind.




I wasn't trying to pass that off as straight findings, I was trying to tell you the same thing.

You know your dishonesty is the only tool you seem to have left. You replied to my argument, supported by a quote from YOUR link:
Dont expect me to answer something if you don't copy it to tell me what you want me to answer Jeez.




Looks like more of a reconstruction or a repair than anything else.

your link says 'Scholars surmise the original Greek text from the versions that do survive.' so you again was not trying to tell me the same thing. You were maintaining your dishonesty.
So what is your point, was there something from the greek text that wasn't so clear?




Word of mouth does not constitute a clear historical document.
Might have been passed down for 300 years by word of mouth does not constitute a firsthand witness or a reliable source for the bible we see today. Which alone makes it NOT a clear historical document which is why the religious scholars debate the meanings to this very day.
Depends, on what sections your talking about, and I also failed to mention the fact that the cherry picked parts I chose are repeated in various parts of the bible, so ya, its pretty clear.




So if your trying to say that the bible is not 100% in order, I agree, I never claimed otherwise

Claiming the bible to be 'a clear historical document' is you claiming otherwise.

Also why did you ignore this point from your link that I asked you to comment on?
The redundant sections I'm referring to ya.




Cherry picking what you will answer now are you? Please address this point as you should have.
As I have said about 7 times now, I'm not religious and I'm not christian, so your example doesn't apply to me, try again.




Explain. Your cherry picked sections? If you mean the bibles cherry picked sections then you are in even bigger trouble with your claim
The points that I brought up are redundantly covered in the bible in different sections, so I'm not feeling you here.




Use the back button. Reply to my post that I explained I missed out your quote. Amended the original and asked you to respond
Your going to have to be a little more specific if you want an answer.




I take it from your continued avoidance you will not retract the lie you made. A very poor response from you but alas an expected one as you have zero credibility on this thread
There was no lie, I have about five times for you to repeat it and I'll address otherwise don't expect an answer. At best this is just a way for you to repeadetly claim that I lied



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Your such a liar Colin. What kind of a fool do you take me for. You must think your pretty smart just because you have been rejecting my definitions.

You know what, this section about the bible being a historical document is referring to the bible period. What a loser.



Archaeological and historical researchMain articles: Biblical archaeology school and The Bible and history
Biblical archaeology is the archaeology that relates to and sheds light upon the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. It is used to help determine the lifestyle and practices of people living in biblical times. There are a wide range of interpretations in the field of biblical archaeology. One broad division includes biblical maximalism which generally takes the view that most of the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible is based on history although it is presented through the religious viewpoint of its time. It is considered the opposite of biblical minimalism which considers the Bible a purely post-exilic (5th century BC and later) composition. Even among those scholars who adhere to biblical minimalism, the Bible is a historical document containing first-hand information on the Hellenistic and Roman eras, and there is universal scholarly consensus that the events of the Babylonian captivity of the 6th century BC have a basis in history


en.wikipedia.org...

The fact that it mentions Hellenistic and Roman eras after stating to be a historical document does not mean they were just referring to those only as being historical. If they had, they would have listed them first to make that point.

You lost again colin and your dishonest example is not valid.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Why are we even discussing "target food" if the word is nothing but one of tooth's brain farts???


He's basically making stuff up as he goes along, and all in an effort to "make it fit" for his bat# crazy personal religion. Stop falling for his trolling, because that's what it is...trolling. No one can be that stupid for real


By the way tooth, tell me if I'm correct: You were brought up as a Christian and have always been told "the bible is correct". However, at one point stuff didn't make much sense, so you created your own mini-religion with aliens to "make it fit again" and to explain the sections in the bible that didn't make sense. Because you seem very very confused. On one hand you claim aliens did it, on the other you claim the bible is correct...all the way down to people living inside whales. Dude, wake up, that's all crazy talk!!!
edit on 1-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I have told you three times now you will have to repost them, and its your choice but you just keep ignoring me.
Yeah right like I have 3 times already. I take it you are just a dishonest lying troll that is prepared to make any false statements to defend your baby fantasy. You have shown your worth which is nothing at all.


And if there was anything that disagreed with my claim, I would agree with you, but there isn't, so I don't.
These are your replies?


How is it out of context? It looks good to me so your claim is not valid.
You know what is looking good to me...... Stage three.


What are you ignorant? All origins are historical, OMG.
You are the ignorant , uneducated dishonest one here. There is a huge difference in using the bible as an insight into the lives of people and calling it a clear historical document. Only an ignorant uneducated troll like you would maintain anything else. Stage three is coming


So what is your point, was there something from the greek text that wasn't so clear?
Wasn’t clear? It say's was not there. They surmised the missing parts. It was so clear it was invisible. Again you cannot read to save your life. You again deny even your own information


Depends, on what sections your talking about, and I also failed to mention the fact that the cherry picked parts I chose are repeated in various parts of the bible, so ya, its pretty clear.
And that answers ‘ a 'maybe' verbal history’ and ‘Not a firsthand witness report’ and this has no bearing on your use of the bible.
great example of how you source your information.


The redundant sections I'm referring to ya.
So that is you answer. You ignored it and now you give some random nonsense

For many Christians the Bible is also infallible, in that it is incapable of error within matters of faith and practice. For example, that the Bible is free from error in spiritual but not necessarily in historic or scientific matters
I suppose you cannot see this at all. Blind to it. . You just passed another level of ignorance.


As I have said about 7 times now, I'm not religious and I'm not christian, so your example doesn't apply to me, try again.
You don’t have to be religious to answer the point, just honest. You are definitely not honest.
So refusal again to enter into debate. Your usual dismissal tactics and your blind spot when you are faced with things that challenge you.

You lost the debate on the bible and its use in this thread. You also lost all credibility but hey not a big loss as you had none to begin with.

Stage three comes into force. See if you can guess what it is


edit on 1-7-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Your such a liar Colin. What kind of a fool do you take me for. You must think your pretty smart just because you have been rejecting my definitions.
I see no logical argument here. No comment



You know what, this section about the bible being a historical document is referring to the bible period. What a loser.
Not only have you lost this point already. Your use of the bible totally debunked and rejected what is the point of further discussion when again you supply a quote that says:

1. It is used to help determine the lifestyle and practices of people living in biblical times. (Not a clear historical document.)
2. There are a wide range of interpretations in the field of biblical archaeology. (Not a clear historical document.)
3. and there is universal scholarly consensus that the events of the Babylonian captivity of the 6th century BC have a basis in history. (Again Not a clear historical document.)


The fact that it mentions Hellenistic and Roman eras after stating to be a historical document does not mean they were just referring to those only as being historical. If they had, they would have listed them first to make that point.
Nope. Read your own information how they wrote it not how you think they wrote it. So the only part where you have a claim for any type of documented history is Hellenistic and Roman eras. A bit late for your intervention by aliens you say is clearly documented.

Your whole quote say's nothing about a clear historical document that backs up your insane claims to maintain a your homemade religion laid on a foundation of lies, denial and ignorance. I don’t see a bright future for it or you, its self appointed messiah

You failed again. You will again deny and again ignore so what is your point?


edit on 1-7-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 
Yep you are pretty much spot on with your analysis. His Christian upbringing should however have told him lies are a sin. Yet another thing he has rejected and ignored which is common with religious fundamentalists like him.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Why are we even discussing "target food" if the word is nothing but one of tooth's brain farts???

He's basically making stuff up as he goes along, and all in an effort to "make it fit" for his bat# crazy personal religion. Stop falling for his trolling, because that's what it is...trolling. No one can be that stupid for real
Target food isn't just conjured up like your one line replies.




By the way tooth, tell me if I'm correct: You were brought up as a Christian and have always been told "the bible is correct". However, at one point stuff didn't make much sense, so you created your own mini-religion with aliens to "make it fit again" and to explain the sections in the bible that didn't make sense. Because you seem very very confused. On one hand you claim aliens did it, on the other you claim the bible is correct...all the way down to people living inside whales. Dude, wake up, that's all crazy talk!!!
Again your making assumptions and I wasn't aware that you tried living in a whale so that you know its false or know someone that has. As far as growing up, I partially grew up in a loose catholic home, and the other partial part hated religion for no reason. As far as creating my own religion, well I had nothing to do with writting the bible so your wrong again.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I have told you three times now you will have to repost them, and its your choice but you just keep ignoring me.

Yeah right like I have 3 times already. I take it you are just a dishonest lying troll that is prepared to make any false statements to defend your baby fantasy. You have shown your worth which is nothing at all.
They must not be that big of a deal as I notice you still havent reposted them.




What are you ignorant? All origins are historical, OMG.

You are the ignorant , uneducated dishonest one here. There is a huge difference in using the bible as an insight into the lives of people and calling it a clear historical document. Only an ignorant uneducated troll like you would maintain anything else. Stage three is coming
Just because its not clear to you, did it not ever occur to you that mabye YOUR the problem. I told you if you don't understand it, your probabaly not reading it right and your not qualified to be reading it.

Your the troll.




So what is your point, was there something from the greek text that wasn't so clear?

Wasn’t clear? It say's was not there. They surmised the missing parts. It was so clear it was invisible. Again you cannot read to save your life. You again deny even your own information
Ok now I'm seeing what the problem is here, your assuming that something can't be clear if it might not be accurate. Now your making assumptions on top of assumptions that first of all the rewritten part can't be accurate. But I did explain to you that the bible does have a lot of redundant sections, so maybe they used this to their advantage. At any rate if they wrote it in clear understanding regardless of how accuarate it is, it is still clear.




Depends, on what sections your talking about, and I also failed to mention the fact that the cherry picked parts I chose are repeated in various parts of the bible, so ya, its pretty clear.

And that answers ‘ a 'maybe' verbal history’ and ‘Not a firsthand witness report’ and this has no bearing on your use of the bible. great example of how you source your information.
So now your complain that the bible is not first hand, or at least parts of it isn't first hand. So now the question becomes what parts, and are they parts we have used.

As far as how I source my information, the only difference between you and I colin is I don't make random assumptions and stretch whats offered, instead I look for the subject to be repeated several times to ensure its clear. For example you have written back now over three times asking me to explain what it is your complaining about. I told you over three times I wont be able to do so unless you repost the problem. All times you failed to offer the post so its clear your not going to.




The redundant sections I'm referring to ya.

So that is you answer. You ignored it and now you give some random nonsense
For many Christians the Bible is also infallible, in that it is incapable of error within matters of faith and practice. For example, that the Bible is free from error in spiritual but not necessarily in historic or scientific matters
I suppose you cannot see this at all. Blind to it. . You just passed another level of ignorance.
No its that I don't consider myself to be christian so I can't relate. You on the other hand persist in throwing me into that section when I have told you time and time again, that I don't believe in religion. You have this automatic fascination with the bible having to belong to someone that is religious, but your wrong, and I have explained that but you don't get it.




You don’t have to be religious to answer the point, just honest. You are definitely not honest.
So refusal again to enter into debate. Your usual dismissal tactics and your blind spot when you are faced with things that challenge you.

You lost the debate on the bible and its use in this thread. You also lost all credibility but hey not a big loss as you had none to begin with.

Stage three comes into force. See if you can guess what it is
Again I can't answer something from a christians view, I don't know how many times I have to say it, I'm not christian. Your asking me to enter into a debate which I have made clear over a dozen times now that I'm not in a position to do so, as I'm not religious.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Target food isn't just conjured up like your one line replies.


Well, you can't seem to find a definition and present us with the source...so you're wrong, it's completely made up until you show us a properly sourced definition





Again your making assumptions and I wasn't aware that you tried living in a whale so that you know its false or know someone that has.


I don't need to try living inside a whale because it's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE...kind of like I don't need to jump into boiling water to know it would boil me to death




top topics



 
31
<< 431  432  433    435  436  437 >>

log in

join