My Canoe Challenge

[Psudopod]

So you are infact agreeign with AVVET, that there exist disagrments among scientists?

I'm saying that there is disagreement about some things.

 

[Lillen]

It is doctrines! and it is Religion - remeber religion is a whole own facuality at universities. Talbot School of Theology is one of those thousands of universities that teaches religion. Oral Roberts another.

But to look at it fair, According to me proffessing religion is faith based upon a persons personal need for a saviour, someone who can remove guilt and sin, and within christianity, can atone man with God. The word salvation literaly means to be set in a good mood (Ie enter heaven).

But that doesn't mean i can't look at religion as a feild of study, as teachings on how people are affected by their belief....

 

[Lillen]

Sorry a misconception...

The literal translation of Religion...

 

[Delphiki]

WordNet Search - 3.0

S: (n) acronym (a word formed from the initial letters of the several words in the name)

WordNet Search - 3.0

• S: (n) redemption, salvation ((theology) the act of delivering from sin or saving from evil)
• S: (n) salvation (a means of preserving from harm or unpleasantness) "tourism was their economic salvation"; "they turned to individualism as their salvation"
• S: (n) salvation (the state of being saved or preserved from harm)
• S: (n) salvation (saving someone or something from harm or from an unpleasant situation) "the salvation of his party was the president's major concern"

 

[Lillen]

Diffrent sources disagree on the literal word of religion and salvation. Just as baptism literally means to "wash repetedly". I am using BibleWorks 6.0 and use that as reference.

 

[Lillen]

In swedish.

Re = Åter
Ligion = Koppla

or Sammanknyta...

 

[AV1611VET]

Even most athiests don't oppose christianity, they just don't believe in it.

It is opposing it -- in a way.

Not believing in Christianity makes one insensitive to Christian issues, causing inadvertent problems.

Declaring neutrality, for example, where issues of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms come up; or outright voting for a ban on nativity scenes on courthouse lawns; or not wanting IN GOT WE TRUST on our coins, etc.

Yes, I can go to work and say to the CEO, "I don't believe in your work ethics", and it's not going to make me any less of a productive worker; but who would be the odd-man-out?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yup, I'm sure claiming that we issue Satanic propaganda and are in league with the antiChrist has nothing to do with getting a frosty reception around here, not to mention how manipulative you frequently are with other people's replies in an attempt to manufacture a victory for yourself

It wouldn't matter, would it?

Remember back about a year ago, when you went ballistic on me on that matter concerning the end times, and maintained your choleric zeal, even when I showed you it was basic doctrine?

Ya -- we might have and opinion that you guys 'are in league with the antichrist', but even if it was doctrinal, it wouldn't matter -- you'd still arc and spark about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

This sounds more of an issue with your school education than with science.

Or your age.

 

[Nabobalis]

It wouldn't matter, would it?

Remember back about a year ago, when you went ballistic on me on that matter concerning the end times, and maintained your choleric zeal, even when I showed you it was basic doctrine?

Ya -- we might have and opinion that you guys 'are in league with the antichrist', but even if it was doctrinal, it wouldn't matter -- you'd still arc and spark about it.

Wouldn't it make more sense that you are in league with the antichrist?

 

[AV1611VET]

In science, if there ever is a disagreement with theory, there's usually some kind of evidence to contradict it, which then either replaces or refines the previous theory.

You just said basically the same thing.

We have disagreements, and so does science.

 

[Cabal]

It wouldn't matter, would it?

Remember back about a year ago, when you went ballistic on me on that matter concerning the end times, and maintained your choleric zeal, even when I showed you it was basic doctrine?

Remember when I pointed out, and still will point out until it penetrates your cavernous cranium, that whatever backwater fundie church you're a part of doesn't get to define what Christian basic doctrine is?

Ya -- we might have and opinion that you guys 'are in league with the antichrist', but even if it was doctrinal, it wouldn't matter -- you'd still arc and spark about it.

Because it's wrong, perhaps? Not to mention a horrible thing to claim about an entire group of people, then again, generalisations are your forte.

Oh, but we're gifts from God, so that makes it alright.

As ever, it's no different from:

*wham*
"Aw, but baby I still love you"

 

[Cabal]

You just said basically the same thing.

We have disagreements, and so does science.

Except we are not basing our stance on an allegedly perfect book whose literal interpretation is supposedly apparent.

Again, it would be quicker to list the things you ARE consistent on.....

 

[AV1611VET]

Wouldn't it make more sense that you are in league with the antichrist?

From your perspective, I imagine so.

It would certainly be Biblical.

It's not like we haven't been accused of it before:

Luke 7:33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.

 

[lucaspa]

So now we have a 1-day old canoe, made from a 1000-year-old mature log.

So, in essence, we have a canoe that is mature, but without a history.

Would you say this is correct?

Absolutely not. The canoe is not "mature". The material it was made from -- the tree -- had a history.

AV, if God were to make a large tree instantaneously, He would make it without annual rings. After all, the rings don't contribute to strength. They are only there as a result of growth each year. Since the tree never grew, it would have no rings. Would you say this was correct?

 

[Split Rock]

You just said basically the same thing.

We have disagreements, and so does science.

Disagreements among scientists are not a problem for us. We don't claim to know Absolute Truth. We don't claim Inerrant Divine Revelation. We don't claim our theories are backed by Perfect Documentation dictated by a perfect god. You do.. and it is all you have to base your psuedo-science on.

 

[chilehed]

As I use it, it means: time in existence -- the amount of time something has been around.

In that case the canoe's been around for less than a day, so it's less than a day old.

WHEW!! Glad this one's over.

 

[AV1611VET]

In that case the canoe's been around for less than a day, so it's less than a day old.

WHEW!! Glad this one's over.

Me too, actually!

 

[Gracchus]

A 'poe' is a post made in jest that can't be understood by the reader.

A Poe is someone pretending to hold a certain position and playing clueless just to get a rise out of people. Sort of like a troll, only a fake troll. For example, s Poe might join the board, holding a creationist opinion, and intentionally use all the common misrepresentations of evolution. (eg: blah blah 747 in a graveyard! Why are there still monkeys?) even though they might not even be creationists at all, but just playing one for their own amusement.

Wrong! Those are trolls.

A Poe is a post that cannot be classified as an honest opinion or a parody, without something like a smiley. Thus, if you can't tell if post was made by an honest, though demented creationist, or a troll, someone posing as a creationist in order to parody creationists in a sarcastic manner, you call "Poe!"

Some people, for instance, apparently believe that AV1611VET, is a troll trying to discredit creationism by depicting himself as an irrational, crackpot creationist, and others think he really believes the stuff he posts.

If I can't determine which, I call "Poe!"

 

[AV1611VET]

If I can't determine which, I call "Poe!"

So when you 'call Poe', you're admitting ignorance, are you not?

Let's suppose you 'call Poe' on someone.

How can that person convince you he is not a Poe?