Recent content by blader

Yes indeed it has - college wrecks heck on debating time. =)

It's synonymous with the stomach area of the human body. That's why you work our your "abs" at the gym.

Christians can lie like any other human. That doesn't make them not Christian.

Like I said, people are really gullible. I am a person, so I too am gullible. ... just not gullible enough to believe our good doctor's fantasies. But no, I changed my mind. People don't believe Hovind just because they're gullible. People agree with Hovind because he tells them what they...

There's not a whole lot of them here anymore, I don't think. He's been thoroughly thrashed over and over again on these forums. Only the most obtuse still believe in our good "Doctor."

People. Are. Really. Gullible.

You know, this whole time, I actually didn't realize I was in the Fellowship forums. My mistake. I'll be on my way now. =P

It would illegal for anyone to get suspended for saying "under God" as part of the pledge or, for that matter, any religious message. No student is banned from saying any version of the pledge. It's just that schools aren't allowed to lead everyone in that pledge anymore... I still don't see why...

That's sort of zadok's point.

On a more serious note... C-14 dating has an accurate upper dating limit of about 50,000 years. It is not accurate for dates above that. For dates on the evolutionary scale, K/Ar dating as well as other methods are used.

It's the work of the devil. Jesus is responsible for the nuclear force in atoms (Colossians 1:17). When people use C-14 dating, they are measuring how much the devil is winning the fight against Jesus in the nucleus. Tacoman can tell you more about this.

I would have been glad to help! People don't accept your more general definition, which as I illustrated, is entirely different. I should have better considered my choice of words. It would be wrong to say that the word means whatever a person wants it to mean. Would I should have said it...

Yes, but the dictionary includes other traits in that definition, no? They are there for a reason. It would be a fallacious leap of logic to ignore the supernatural descriptors present in both of the definitions. I thought you were going to stick with the higher authority of Merrian-Webster...

Talk about fallacious leaps of logic! Notice the distinction that Webster makes between the capitalized proper noun God and the lower case god. The third definition is for the general noun, not the proper, capitalized noun. As such, your logic in no way works for the correct definition. No...

I don't see God to mean that. It would be a stretch for nearly all people to think that God could mean something entirely natural. You have no right to force all people who disagree with your particular leap of logic to see the word "God" as you do. The most common meaning of the capitalized God...