Missing link was a lie (2)

[JustMeSee]

What about, "Pluto is our 9th planet!"

Pluto is what Pluto was. By any other name, it is the same celestial body.

This has been covered MANY times in this forum. You are great with your habitual QV links. I am sure you can find those threads.

 

[dad]

I am 9 in current state years. In past state, I aged much faster back then.

My English spelling is bad sometimes. It is not my first language.

If there was any difference in a year in the times of the fathers, it likely wasn't much. Are you really 9?

 

[AV1611VET]

You have the map confused with the territory.

Does that map still have Alchemy Avenue and Phlogiston Place on it?

How about Vioxx Venue or Thalidomide Terrace?

It seems to me recently that a vessel was following that map to perfection -- for 73 seconds -- then it dead-ended.

 

[AV1611VET]

Pluto is what Pluto was. By any other name, it is the same celestial body.

And what about Charon, it's moon?

This has been covered MANY times in this forum. You are great with your habitual QV links. I am sure you can find those threads.

Like this one -- 32 -- that you guys conveniently overlooked when I first started yakking about Pluto?

 

[ukgrace]

I don't know much science myself, but I get suspicious when a biologist starts talking about plate tectonics, or a geologist talks about biology.

It just doesn't set right with me; and it comes across as an attitude of 'Since I have a PhD in chemistry, I'm qualified to talk about astronomy.'

But it seems to 'set right with you' if Creationists do it!! that just about sums up Creationist thinking, you require evidence from science but it seems to 'set right with you' if you provide none yourself, your reasoning is childish,
but then it would seem so is Creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

But it seems to 'set right with you' if Creationists do it!!

No, mam, it doesn't.

What's with the double-exclamation points?

Would you like to peruse more that 1.2 million posts to see exactly what I have said against my brothers and sisters in Christ who use science to back up their theology?

 

[Hespera]

Pluto is what Pluto was. By any other name, it is the same celestial body.

This has been covered MANY times in this forum. You are great with your habitual QV links. I am sure you can find those threads.

Pluto and thalidomide's function and purpose in this forum is to derail a thread. (MANY times) And like charlie brown / lucy and the football, it always seems to work.

 

[ukgrace]

Would you like to peruse more that 1.2 million posts to see exactly what I have said against my brothers and sisters in Christ who use science to back up their theology?

Before I signed up here I wandered around for a while just to see what was what and I came across a counting section that people use to do... I didn't know what? and one name stood out more than any other and that was AV1611VET, when I saw your name in the creationist section with 1,200,000 posts I understood what it was for, it's to blind other creationists into thinking that you have actually posted 1,200,000 posts when I doubt that you have posted less than 10% of those, your count is as big a lie as creationism and I expect you are really proud of yourself as well for being such a you know what.

Just what do you get out of being such a fraud?

 

[AV1611VET]

Before I signed up here I wandered around for a while just to see what was what and I came across a counting section that people use to do... I didn't know what? and one name stood out more than any other and that was AV1611VET, when I saw your name in the creationist section with 1,200,000 posts I understood what it was for, it's to blind other creationists into thinking that you have actually posted 1,200,000 posts when I doubt that you have posted less than 10% of those, your count is as big a lie as creationism and I expect you are really proud of yourself as well for being such a you know what.

Just what do you get out of being such a fraud?

Ask these guys: 1

 

[ukgrace]

Ask these guys

I don't know what to say but I suppose what you did was just a follow on from your Creationism a complete waste of time and effort.

Why did you ask me to 'peruse 1.2 million post'? so I could read lots and lots of numbers?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why did you ask me to 'peruse 1.2 million post'? so I could read lots and lots of numbers?

Let me refresh your memory of what you said:

But it seems to 'set right with you' if Creationists do it!!

Where did you get that idea?

Certainly not from something I said -- (I hope).

I get tired of people who show up out of the blue, claiming I said this or didn't say that.

But for the record, I think you're Consol, anyway.

But I could be wrong.

 

[ukgrace]

Like this one -- 32 -- that you guys conveniently overlooked when I first started yakking about Pluto?

Let me refresh your memory of what you said: But it seems to 'set right with you' if Creationists do it!!

Where did you get that idea?

Certainly not from something I said -- (I hope).

I get tired of people who show up out of the blue, claiming I said this or didn't say that.

But for the record, I think you're Consol, anyway.

But I could be wrong.

You said it not me, go to the link you gave me and have a look.

I don't have enough posts to post links, perhaps I should spend a while on the counting forum.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't have enough posts to post links, perhaps I should spend a while on the counting forum.

See you there --

 

[Split Rock]

Now now, don't make lying insane claims.

I'm not the one making insane claims... you are. You claim your interpretation of scripture (so-called) is inerrant. Only God is inerrant, hence you think you are God. Is that clear enough for you?

Nature of the present is not nature. It is temporal nature, for man with sin nature.

This doesn't address the the fact that sciecne is the best way to understand nature, not your so-called scripture.

Calling the new heavens so called new heavens, and the flood a so called flood, and Adam, a so called man, and Eden a so called place, etc is childish, and ignorant of the facts.

It is childish to take an analogy and think it is a history, and it is ignorant of the facts that show the earth is old and its geology was not shaped by a global flood.

The monor by-laws of the Jews, if applied to today as actual rules to live by, are silly, just as all out of context renderings of true meanings are silly.

The stories in Genesis, if applied as a literal history and out of the context they were written in, are silly. A fifth grader can see that, why can't you?

 

[dad]

I'm not the one making insane claims... you are.

Believing what God says the future and past were like is anything but insane. Accepting the limits of physical science is anything but foolish. Stuffing the whole universe in a cup o soup, or having a big bad black hole swallow the whole thing one day in the future is insane! Denying the spiritual is foolish. Pretending that the present is the key to the future and past is lying vanity.

You claim your interpretation of scripture (so-called) is inerrant. Only God is inerrant, hence you think you are God. Is that clear enough for you?

Lie. Never hinted at such whacked out nonsense.

This doesn't address the the fact that sciecne is the best way to understand nature, not your so-called scripture.

I agree. It is not any way to understand scripture. If all you want is present nature, join science in the box. Cheers.

It is childish to take an analogy and think it is a history, and it is ignorant of the facts that show the earth is old and its geology was not shaped by a global flood.

Strawman. I never said the earth was shaped by a flood.

The stories in Genesis, if applied as a literal history and out of the context they were written in, are silly. A fifth grader can see that, why can't you?

Says you. But you can't wave God away, or Eden, or the spiritual, etc. You need to deal with it. Long lifespans are not something you can disprove, nor the garden, nor Eve made from a rib, nor sin, nor the flood, nor the different past or future. You are beat. Checkmate.

 

[JustMeSee]

Looking at the world around us, I have trouble understanding why some people swear that science and scientists are habitual liars.

 

[Split Rock]

Believing what God says the future and past were like is anything but insane. Accepting the limits of physical science is anything but foolish. Stuffing the whole universe in a cup o soup, or having a big bad black hole swallow the whole thing one day in the future is insane! Denying the spiritual is foolish. Pretending that the present is the key to the future and past is lying vanity.

Your so-called scripture is not written by God. That is a Lie you continue to propagate. Black holes exist and it is foolishness to deny it. Stop projecting your faults on others.

Lie. Never hinted at such whacked out nonsense.

Of course you have. I'll ask you straight out then, so I can watch you dance and wiggle around answering... Is Your Interpretation of Scripture Inerrant or Not?

I agree. It is not any way to understand scripture. If all you want is present nature, join science in the box. Cheers.

I suppose if I want to understand the past. I have to accept your so-called scripture... correct?

Strawman. I never said the earth was shaped by a flood.

Are you claiming it was not?

Says you. But you can't wave God away, or Eden, or the spiritual, etc. You need to deal with it. Long lifespans are not something you can disprove, nor the garden, nor Eve made from a rib, nor sin, nor the flood, nor the different past or future.

You need to deal with reality and stop whining about how evil science is, while you sit safe in your air-conditioned home, while posting on the internet.

You are beat. Checkmate.

Too late. I already defeated you. Check the byline under my name.

 

[dad]

Looking at the world around us, I have trouble understanding why some people swear that science and scientists are habitual liars.

I don't.

 

[MoonLancer]

No, mam, it doesn't.

What's with the double-exclamation points?

Would you like to peruse more that 1.2 million posts to see exactly what I have said against my brothers and sisters in Christ who use science to back up their theology?

1... 2... nope cant find it. too many counting threads.

 

[dad]

Your so-called scripture is not written by God. That is a Lie you continue to propagate.

Great, so Jesus rose from the dead on some false prophesies I suppose. Prove it.

Black holes exist and it is foolishness to deny it. Stop projecting your faults on others.

The evidence is indirect, and easily interpreted. Claiming a blck hole will eat the universe in the future is the issue, and science says it will.

Of course you have. I'll ask you straight out then, so I can watch you dance and wiggle around answering... Is Your Interpretation of Scripture Inerrant or Not?

Not on creation issues. But it is one powerful case.

I suppose if I want to understand the past. I have to accept your so-called scripture... correct?

Correct. Otherwise you ride only as far as the science bus goes.

Are you claiming it was not?

Yes. I don't recall God sating a flood shaped the word in creation week?

You need to deal with reality and stop whining about how evil science is, while you sit safe in your air-conditioned home, while posting on the internet.

Don't try to claim credit for in box science. Christians get a lot of credit for that. So called science you can have all the credit for!

Too late. I already defeated you. Check the byline under my name.

I don't care if you scrawled graffiti on a garbage pail, that says you are the heavyweight boxing champ of the world.. Your same state past world is demonstrated as fantasy, and totally belief based nonsense.