Missing link was a lie

[dad]

dad:


Good luck with that.

You do realise that you'd be the one putting forward a case for a different state past, don't you? You don't, do you? And that is precisely why it would be fun to watch.

The ones that had a case they wanted to teach as science would need to defend it as such.

 

[Tomatoman]

The ones that had a case they wanted to teach as science would need to defend it as such.

You don't get it. You're the one making a claim, therefore you have to back it up. You haven't. You never even try. You don't even seem to understand that this a problem.

Science describes the world based on the evidence we have. You, on the other hand, just indulge in baseless speculation and, bizarrely, claim your fantasy is true because you say it is. You have been told this a hundred times and it doesn't penetrate your skull. Is it any wonder most replies to you are condescending, take the mickey out of you and are impatient. You are making a prat of yourself for God only knows what reason, and then go on a victory lap. I can only assume there is something wrong with you.

 

[dad]

Then why do you claim that is it an accurate portrayal of ancient kings? If the list is not accurate for dates of reign, what makes it accurate for mentioning "spirit" kings?

I don't claim it is all that. I merely point out that it records spirits as real things, right here among men. The details of fates, and order of succession, etc, I don't use.

I couldn't load the page. In any case, if you claim it is so inaccurate, why do you continue to use it?

So if you think the list is lying about the reign of Thoth then what makes it accurate about "gods" as kings? All it shows is humanity's capability to deify ancient rulers. Just because some of it is exaggerated does not mean the whole thing is.

We do not know. It is an old list. Some think certain kinds are really other kings..maybe. Others think the fragments are arranged wrong. Others think that the years are not years of reign, etc etc. However, what we can glean from it, is that spirits were part of the early record.

Humanity's capability to ascribe great deeds and feats to ancient people.

Unknown. You can't wave it away like that. Sure we need a grain of salt, with pagan records, a large grain, but some basics of life can be gleaned from the records.

If it is so untrustworthy as a source of dates, what makes it any different about ancient spirit kings?

That depends on whether you want accurate dates for the spirit kings or just the info that there were such things!

Conversely, an unknown scribbler is hardly a reliable source for the reliability of "spirit" kings. I still haven't heard a counter for 3,000 years of Egyptian history being fit into a 2,000 year time span.

But it is not just the one list, or even country that records spirits. That is just one piece of evidence in many.

So you believe that Mohammad ascended into heaven by angels? You believe that Buddha walked on water and was protected by a naga as he sat under the Bodhi tree to reach enlightenment?

What's a naga? If there was some spirits helping, why would that bother me? If they didn't confess that Jesus is the Christ, and come in the flesh, they are not good spirits, however.

All I have claimed is that later Egyptian culture deified pharaohs so it is no surprise that they did the same with the earliest rulers.

Speculation. They also recorded actual people!

So now you are claiming they are ridiculous? In earlier posts you mentioned how the Turin list mentions "spirits" as rulers and how it proves your "different state" past nonsense. Now you are claiming they are "ridiculous records made by some insane scribbler". Funny, funny, funny...

All early records have some sort of spirits in them, no? The fact that the only records we have of the time list spirits as real kings is significant. We need to take them for what they are, and that is not a reliable dating device.

They are animistic, they believe that spirits live everywhere. Spirits can take the form of animals or people. To animistic cultures the spirit world and physical world are inseparable.

Spirits can do that...so?? They can and do inhabit living creatures. However, they are not actual spirit beings, that man sees now. We merely see the body they live in. Before, it was a different degree of presence, where the sons of god actually married women, etc. They had kids, even. Maybe some of those were deified..?! After all, they became men of renown.

I thought there was no heat in the "different state" past? To me that sounds like heat caused by friction and pressure, the same as today in the present state. Ergo, the past was the same as the present.

Well, even if a different state rock had a much lower melt point, or some such, I see no reason to assume that magma could not be produced? But do show us, if you have some evidence that would require a tweak in that little dept.. Why would it matter?

So if the core is spiritual also, then that means the "split" never happened since the spiritual is still connected to the physical.

No. Look at the curse, after the fall. We had the ground, or earth where man lived, the surface, in other words, that was affected. Do you have some reason to say that the eternal foundations of the earth were also cursed?? That would be news to me. So, what it would appear to me, is that man's world, the surface area was changed. Why do I assume that the stars, and inner earth, and fabric and laws and forces and light were not changed at the time of the fall, you ask? Because there were still clear differences till after the flood! In fact, even at the time of the split, which was the time of Babel as well, if I calculate right, spirits were right nearby, in the sky level! They tried to build up to this 'heaven'!! Why do you think they were stopped? If you look at the time just before the flood, when the Almighty God Himself, Personally announced some big change was coming down the pipes in 120 years...we still see the angels marrying gals in the VERY verse before!

So heat being created from movement is no different than today. Heat is being created by the earth in this state that does not kill life, unless you jump into the lava.

We need to ask when the heat came to be, and how much there was! If it was right at the tail end of the continental separation, for example, when the laws were then present state, we would get a lot of heat! Enough, I wager, to remain under there for thousands of years!! Sometime I may look into a possible connection there, with how the stuff that makes geysers at Yellowstone has been cooling over time..

So are you claiming that the magnetic poles have changed several dozen times in the past few thousand years?

I think they could have flipped like pancakes in the different state. Why would that be any problem at all??

You have consistently claimed that the physical laws of the past were different from the physical laws of the present. We know that pillow lava is formed in aquatic environments. If we find pillow lava in the geologic record, no matter how old it is, whether it is on top of a mountain or in the middle of the desert, we know that it was formed underwater. You have also claimed that you can explain ANY event in the past state. Since you have consistently been unable to explain how pillow lava would form differently in the "past state", I now claim victory.

Well, all you have done is make a point at last, that is semi clear. Easy as pie to address, though. You say that "we know" that pillow lava "IS formed" in water. How would you know that ancient pre flood pillow lava needed to also be formed that way? You haven't even showed us any yet! You mention one site in Australia, and failed to reply when asked of details about it! Do your homework.

 

[dad]

You don't get it. You're the one making a claim, therefore you have to back it up. You haven't. You never even try. You don't even seem to understand that this a problem.

In talking about suing the false teachers, and system, the focus is on what they claim.. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that the future will be this state/. Therefore, right there, we can sue for all the stinking lies they teach on the death of the universe! Prove that this present state will exist for trillions of years, to kill all stars, etc! They would have zero hope of that! Then, the same goes foor the far past, long before science existed! They have built a house of cards on the foundation that the present IS THE KEY to that past. It is a lie, and impossible to prove. They can't win.

 

[dad]

Already tried by members of your creationist apologetics ilk... and failed. It was called: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). You wouldn't even have gotten as far as they did.

Nope. They never shoved science, and it's claims, up against the ropes, and pounded till it fell down! They never put IT on trial, and forced it to defend the claimed present state universe and laws in the past and future! That would finish em, cause it can't be done. They are founded on a lie.

We are not claiming God was wrong, ..

So, are you claiming He was right?! Or are you playing games, and not being forthright? Is He right or not, be honest?

Only a Prophet of God should be so very sure of his particular interpretation of scripture equals God's Inerrant Word. Therefore, in your twisted little mind, you must be a prophet. Still claim I am "patronizing" you?

So if I think that temporal laws like gravity apply, I am a prophet if I jump off a building? One needs to be a 'prophet' to know certain things now?? The records of man, and God, combined with the actual limits of man's real and actual knowledge are something we can work with with some confidence. Quit blowing smoke.

 

[Tomatoman]

dad:

In talking about suing the false teachers, and system, the focus is on what they claim.

There we are, a complete waste of time talking to you. Science's claims are backed up by the evidence we have. All of it. Science starts with what we know and tests it against the evidence we have, and guess what, the science of the present day fits exactly with the physical, chemical, biological and geological evidence we have of the past. No observable anomolies at all. Your claims aren't based on testable science. Your claims are based on stories from an old book of myths. We can dismiss your evidence out of hand as worthless, because it doesn't fit the observable, measurable, testable evidence from the real world that we live in. That is why you have a problem with it. The real world and you are at odds. That is your problem not the problem of science and the real world. Your inability to grasp this point even after it has been hammered home to you with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer can only imply what we today call 'learning difficulties'. The type of learning difficulties faced by the 'educationally challenged'.

dad:

It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that the future will be this state/. Therefore, right there, we can sue for all the stinking lies they teach on the death of the universe!

Go on then. The courts could do with a good laugh.

dad:

Prove that this present state will exist for trillions of years, to kill all stars, etc! They would have zero hope of that!

Science works from the evidence we have. Unless we have evidence that present state conditions are likely to change then we're not interested. And guess what, we have no evidence that it will change. Onus is on you.

Then, the same goes for the far past, long before science existed!

Wrong, and for the reasons given above. Logic isn't a strong point for you, is it.

They have built a house of cards on the foundation that the present IS THE KEY to that past. It is a lie, and impossible to prove. They can't win.

It doesn't need to be proved, It needs to be disproved. That is how science works. One bit of evidence contradicting a scientific theory changes everything. You need to provide that evidence. Onus on you.

You can make all the claims you want, but unless you have evidence that is testable or measurable and backs up your claims you will just be laughed at. Got it? Do you understand that? Just give some indication that any of it registered in your brain. Just give a glimmer of a flicker of a suggestion that you comprehend why science doesn't have to do anything; you do.

 

[dad]

dad:


There we are, a complete waste of time talking to you. Science's claims are backed up by the evidence we have. All of it.

Nope, NONE of the states of the future or past are even attempted to be backed up! They just procceded as if it were as the present, period. Time someone jerked the lying rug right out from them. They have wasted all our time for too long now.

[/quote]
Science starts with what we know and tests it against the evidence we have, and guess what, the science of the present day fits exactly with the physical, chemical, biological and geological evidence we have of the past. [/quote]

Utterly false, and preposterously far from the point. You have no idea what the chemical, or biological realities of the past were. What we now have is stuff in this state, and that has been in this state for a long long time! That is merely evidence it IS in this state, NOT that is WAS laid down in it. How else would we expect to find it?

No observable anomolies at all. Your claims aren't based on testable science.

Testible science doesn't extend beyond the fishbowl of this state. To even suggest it can go back, or forward in time, and test the fabric of the universe is truly absurd. Science isn't about that. It is about making demonic, lying, godless stuff up!

Your claims are based on stories from an old book of myths.

Old is a good thing when we want to look at the far past. The older, the better! You are not qualified to call it a myth. All you can say is that is way above your current abilities to call it truth or lie. We can call so called science fabricated futures and pasts myths, however. It is certain they do not, and cannot know.

We can dismiss your evidence out of hand as worthless, because it doesn't fit the observable, measurable, testable evidence from the real world that we live in.

It doesn't need to fit your world, pal. Or the world of the rest of us in this temporal present state! It needs to fit the records, and God's word. It also needs to fit the evidence. That does not mean fitting into your unproven present state in the future state myth either. Nothing needs to fit foolish fables.

That is why you have a problem with it.

Tough!! I have a problem with baseless dream worlds that oppose the records, and God.

The real world and you are at odds.

In no way is that remotely close to being mildly true. Nothing in the bible, or my ideas oppose the present state, or real knowledge. I merely keep it real, right here where it exists, and applies, rather than make godless stuff up.

Go on then. The courts could do with a good laugh.

One thing is certain, if the evidence was on the table, none of it would prove the required same state past. So, unless the deck is stacked, the evo doctrine, forced on innocents in the education system, would get clobbered. Maybe they could teach your myths to those interested --after school hours! Just keep the dark belief based fables out of science class, please.

Science works from the evidence we have. Unless we have evidence that present state conditions are likely to change then we're not interested. And guess what, we have no evidence that it will change. Onus is on you.

You have no evidence it will stay the same. So it can't be taught as knowledge. You can believe what you want, you cannot prove it, or evidence it. I have my own beliefs, thank you very much. They don't happen to include the universe in a speck, or Granny Bacteria.

It doesn't need to be proved, It needs to be disproved.

No more than the tooth fairy! If you want to use her as the foundation of all science claims about the past, you will need to prove her too! Gotcha.

That is how science works. One bit of evidence contradicting a scientific theory changes everything. You need to provide that evidence. Onus on you.

One bit of evidence that the present is the key to the past is needed before it forms a basis for all reality. The evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

You can make all the claims you want, but unless you have evidence that is testable or measurable and backs up your claims you will just be laughed at. Got it? Do you understand that?

You can make all the claims you want, but unless you have evidence for your present universe fabric in the far past, that is testable or measurable and backs up your claims you will just be laughed at. Got it? Do you understand that, palsy?

Just give some indication that any of it registered in your brain. Just give a glimmer of a flicker of a suggestion that you comprehend why science doesn't have to do anything; you do.

It has to know what it is talking about. It has to use a foundation that is known, or science is not science, it is fables. It has to get used to the idea it's time is almost up, and it is fated to become an eternal laughing stock.

 

[Split Rock]

In talking about suing the false teachers, and system, the focus is on what they claim.. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that the future will be this state/. Therefore, right there, we can sue for all the stinking lies they teach on the death of the universe!

Wow. You are truly off your meds now, dad... you're just shouting at the rain with delusions of grandeur.

Prove that this present state will exist for trillions of years, to kill all stars, etc! They would have zero hope of that! Then, the same goes foor the far past, long before science existed! They have built a house of cards on the foundation that the present IS THE KEY to that past. It is a lie, and impossible to prove. They can't win.

Let's see you prove that "the future is the key to the past." It is a lie, and impossible to prove. You can't win.

Nope. They never shoved science, and it's claims, up against the ropes, and pounded till it fell down! They never put IT on trial, and forced it to defend the claimed present state universe and laws in the past and future! That would finish em, cause it can't be done. They are founded on a lie.

Yes, they did try. They tried to convince a judge that science should be re-defined to include their religious philosophy. Sound familiar? The trial would have been much shorter if you were the defendent, however.

So, are you claiming He was right?! Or are you playing games, and not being forthright? Is He right or not, be honest?

We are discussing YOU, not Him. We are discussing your interpretation of scripture and your split/merge fantasy. You really can't tell God and You apart anymore... can you dad?

So if I think that temporal laws like gravity apply, I am a prophet if I jump off a building? One needs to be a 'prophet' to know certain things now?? The records of man, and God, combined with the actual limits of man's real and actual knowledge are something we can work with with some confidence. Quit blowing smoke.

How about the actual limits of dad's real and actual knowledge.. can we discuss that? Or are you so far gone that you can no longer acknowledge your own limitations and fallability?

 

[dad]

Let's see you prove that "the future is the key to the past." It is a lie, and impossible to prove. You can't win. ..

That would only be needed if I had the material presented to be taught as science. All I need to do is show that they also don't. Then, as it fell into the belief dept, I could pull out the big guns of the bible and history, and how those records tell of differences. Force the lying little science guy out from the cover of hiding behind pretending it was real science and knowledge.

Yes, they did try. They tried to convince a judge that science should be re-defined to include their religious philosophy. Sound familiar? The trial would have been much shorter if you were the defendent, however.

That is a losing proposition in a world of evil men, I would think. All I want to do is redefine it to EXCLUDE THEIR religious philosophy. That would free up the future, and far past of falsely called science, and leave the field to the big boys of faith. Those that can really fight in that arena.

We are discussing YOU, not Him. We are discussing your interpretation of scripture and your split/merge fantasy. You really can't tell God and You apart anymore... can you dad?

Well, I was asking you to come clean, and let us know if you thing God was wrong, or even real? If you do not accept any god, then you are hardly in a position to weigh the various expositions of the bible. Don't think I am one to fall for the old divide and conquer routine. 'Oh, you don't all agree, so God can't be right about anything...'

I can play a little divide and conquer myself...on the evos.

How about the actual limits of dad's real and actual knowledge.. can we discuss that? Or are you so far gone that you can no longer acknowledge your own limitations and fallability?

My limits are not so great as not to include a small knowledge of what God said, and history says, and what men actually know. It isn't what I don't know that exposes the Achilles heel of so called science, it is what I do know.

 

[Split Rock]

That would only be needed if I had the material presented to be taught as science. All I need to do is show that they also don't. Then, as it fell into the belief dept, I could pull out the big guns of the bible and history, and how those records tell of differences. Force the lying little science guy out from the cover of hiding behind pretending it was real science and knowledge.

You don't get it at all, dad. Science is what scientists do for a living. Period. If you don't like it, tough. We have nothing to prove to you... just look around at everthing you take for granted. It is all due to science. But we don't ask for your gratitude, dad. We don't need it.

That is a losing proposition in a world of evil men, I would think. All I want to do is redefine it to EXCLUDE THEIR religious philosophy. That would free up the future, and far past of falsely called science, and leave the field to the big boys of faith. Those that can really fight in that arena.

Faith and Science have nothing to do with each other. When faith replaces science, we will all go back to living in caves. You can start, dad. Why not go find a cave on an unihabited island where there is no evil science to disturb your faith? I will tell you why... you do not have the courage to match your convinctions.

Well, I was asking you to come clean, and let us know if you thing God was wrong, or even real? If you do not accept any god, then you are hardly in a position to weigh the various expositions of the bible. Don't think I am one to fall for the old divide and conquer routine. 'Oh, you don't all agree, so God can't be right about anything...'

Sorry, I'm not letting you dodge and weave your way out of this one. We are discussing YOU and YOUR ideas. Not God. You really cannot separate yourself from God, can you? I guess that's why you are his "Little Echo."

I can play a little divide and conquer myself...on the evos.

You will continue to play it all alone. (sniff)

My limits are not so great as not to include a small knowledge of what God said, and history says, and what men actually know. It isn't what I don't know that exposes the Achilles heel of so called science, it is what I do know.

So your answer is No. You cannot discuss your limits and fallibility. A sad, sad case. Your Holy book says "The meek shall inherit the earth." I guess that leaves you out, dad.

 

[Tomatoman]

Me:

Just give some indication that any of it registered in your brain. Just give a glimmer of a flicker of a suggestion that you comprehend why science doesn't have to do anything; you do.

dad:

It has to know what it is talking about. It has to use a foundation that is known, or science is not science, it is fables. It has to get used to the idea it's time is almost up, and it is fated to become an eternal laughing stock.

Not even a glimmer. Sad.

Observations:
1. You don't know what science is.
2. Your faith, if it is genuine and not a made up joke for your own amusement, has been twisted into a reality-denying, fairytale-fulfilling fantasy that can justifiably be called perverted.
3. You're not well.


Questions:
1. Did you study any science beyond the age of 13 in school?
2. Did you ever pass any exams in science, and if so what?
3. Have you ever passed any exams ever?
4. How old are you anyway?
4. Do you really genuinely believe you have somehow stumbled across a revelation that the rest of humanity has overlooked?
6. How many people have you persuaded of this revelation?
7. Why do you think the answer to question 6 is zero?
8. Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong and everybody else right? And if not, why not. Genuine reasons please, not 'I'm right because I'm right' guff.
9. Why do even other christians ignore your claims in these threads? Do you think it might be because they think you are embarrassing them?
10. Are you allowed out in the community alone?
​

 

[dad]

You don't get it at all, dad. Science is what scientists do for a living. Period.

Oh, but I do, and I assure you, they do not go to the future for a living, any more than they go to creation week. They commute to work right here and now. Hope that puts some perspective on it for you.

If you don't like it, tough. We have nothing to prove to you... just look around at everthing you take for granted. It is all due to science. But we don't ask for your gratitude, dad. We don't need it.

So I look, and see stars, and sun, and trees, and pretty women, and beaches. Science gave us none of that. It gave us pollution, and abortion, and womd, and clear cut logging!

Faith and Science have nothing to do with each other. When faith replaces science, we will all go back to living in caves. You can start, dad. Why not go find a cave on an unihabited island where there is no evil science to disturb your faith? I will tell you why... you do not have the courage to match your convinctions.

Science already has been replaced by faith based foolish fables. The horse is already out of the barn.

Sorry, I'm not letting you dodge and weave your way out of this one. We are discussing YOU and YOUR ideas. Not God....

Well my idea is that science can't prove the same state past they use. I notice you haven't come clean in making a stance on God here. Rather than accuse me of not having the perfect bible case, why not just admit you reject God and the bible? Save us all time. While you are at it, admit that science is unable to prove the state of the past or future! Not like you have any choice, I am exposing stuff here.

 

[Tomatoman]

dad:

I am exposing stuff here.

You're exposing yourself, but not much else.

 

[dad]

Observations:
1. You don't know what science is.​

Who cares? I know what it ain't. If science mouths off about some godless alternate dream state creation model, we all have every right to hold it's evil little feet to the fire. Either it can prove that the present is the be all end all, or not. The time for merely assiming such nonsense is over.

2. Your faith, if it is genuine and not a made up joke for your own amusement, has been twisted into a reality-denying, fairytale-fulfilling fantasy that can justifiably be called perverted.
3. You're not well.

Reality in no way includes a present state dying future universe, whether you are able to comprehend that basic truth at the moment or not. Neither does it include a creation week that was in this present state. Just learn to live with the limits of man's actual knowledge. The jigs up.

Questions:
1. Did you study any science beyond the age of 13 in school?

Why, would that help me learn what it cannot know or teach?

4. How old are you anyway?

Old enough to know that I am not old enough to know the state of the universe 4400 years ago. Old enough to read what God says it was like.

4. Do you really genuinely believe you have somehow stumbled across a revelation that the rest of humanity has overlooked?

Yes. I am working on the patent..

6. How many people have you persuaded of this revelation?
7. Why do you think the answer to question 6 is zero?

Who cares? Either it is true or not. That is what you should focus on. The rest will all come in due time.

8. Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong and everybody else right?

I prefer to deal in actual threats, rather than suck my thumb, and worry about what others may think. If they think it, they must be prepared to debate it, and put it on the table. They can't seem to get it up there. Funny, that.

And if not, why not. Genuine reasons please, not 'I'm right because I'm right' guff.

Guff? What's that, British?

9. Why do even other christians ignore your claims in these threads? Do you think it might be because they think you are embarrassing them?

I suppose many are so used to being slapped around by evos, they will take a while to grow a little courage, when they see that you guys really are unable to get back up. Besides, how many Christians much care about the creation debate??

10. Are you allowed out in the community alone?

Haven't met anyone yet that could stop me, why, you have a problem along those lines? We're here for you.

 

[Tomatoman]

Wow, dad, I confess I didn't expect you to score such a massive own goal as you have with your answers to my questions. Just wow.

 

[dad]

Wow, dad, I confess I didn't expect you to score such a massive own goal as you have with your answers to my questions. Just wow.

No problem, I tried to tone it down for you.

 

[Nostromo]

Who cares? I know what it ain't. If science mouths off about some godless alternate dream state creation model, we all have every right to hold it's evil little feet to the fire.​

Are you all tooled up, ready for the new Inquisition?​

 

[Tomatoman]

As a little footnote, here are a couple of English to American translations,

Guff? What's that, British?

Guff | Define Guff at Dictionary.com

guff

"empty talk, nonsense," 1888, from earlier sense of "puff of air" (1825), of imitative origin.

Also, I don't know if the soccer term 'own goal' is familiar to all Americans.

From the same source: dictionary.com

own goal
noun(soccer) a goal that results when a player inadvertently knocks the ball into the goal he is defending; "the own goal cost them the game"

So, if this limey inadvertantly uses unfamiliar British phrases, don't hesitate to tell me. I love differences between American-English and British-English. (I was reading a story the other day about how for some Americans the word English is more immediately associated with the language they speak in America than with a nation of people living on the other side of the Atlantic. That gave me pause for thought.)

Right-ho, footnote over. Carry on.

 

[Split Rock]

Oh, but I do, and I assure you, they do not go to the future for a living, any more than they go to creation week. They commute to work right here and now. Hope that puts some perspective on it for you.

Sorry, but it doesn't. I was hoping you would gain some perspective, but that was a vain hope. A closed mind cannot gain new information.

So I look, and see stars, and sun, and trees, and pretty women, and beaches. Science gave us none of that. It gave us pollution, and abortion, and womd, and clear cut logging!

I guess you don't see the computer you are using, the light fixtures, the heating/cooling system, your refrigerator, stove, car, etc., etc. All the things you take for granted in your save and easy life, as you rail against the provider of it all.

Science already has been replaced by faith based foolish fables. The horse is already out of the barn.

With you running science, it would be a case of the patients running the insane asylum.

Well my idea is that science can't prove the same state past they use. I notice you haven't come clean in making a stance on God here. Rather than accuse me of not having the perfect bible case, why not just admit you reject God and the bible? Save us all time. While you are at it, admit that science is unable to prove the state of the past or future! Not like you have any choice, I am exposing stuff here.

How about you first admitting you do not speak for God. How about first admitting you are fallible. I asked first, afterall. Instead, you dodge, dodge and dodge...

 

[dad]

Are you all tooled up, ready for the new Inquisition?

I am ready for the evo Inquisition to be terminated! The forced worship, and mandatory teaching of lying fables, and doctrines of devils, that is science so called, falsely. I am ready for the dawn to break, and end the greatest dark ages in the history of mankind! I am eager for the day when the truth of God will cover the world like the waters cover the sea.

Isa 60:2 - For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.


Isa 11:9 -They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.



Those that no likey..??

12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.


14 The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet;


So the future looks real bright for the knowledge of the Lord, indeed. He has my vote.