26 Jul 15
Originally posted by sonhouseI don't always spend hours on each move. Sometimes I can spend a day or two to figure out a plan of moves. It all depends on the position and the mood that i am in at the time. But even on here I usually don't do very well by playing quickly by instinct, since i don't have the kind of experience and practice of a Bobby Fischer.
Sorry to hear about your wife. My wife is mostly bed ridden also, with a back operation coming up August 10 and probably more surgeries after that. So you have a present OTB rating in the 15's. I have a present OTB rating close to 18 now but still cannot get consistently to the 18's. I don't use engines but I also don't have a lot of time to move, since my ...[text shortened]... ours a day with that 160 mile two way commute.
So you are saying you spend hours on each move?
27 Jul 15
Originally posted by RJHindsSo we are to believe you are a 1600 or so OTB player but 2100 here? playing 500 points above OTB? NOBODY does that unaided.
I don't always spend hours on each move. Sometimes I can spend a day or two to figure out a plan of moves. It all depends on the position and the mood that i am in at the time. But even on here I usually don't do very well by playing quickly by instinct, since i don't have the kind of experience and practice of a Bobby Fischer.
27 Jul 15
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI never said I got to an RHP rating of 2100 unaided. I did start off playing unaided, but then I got more serious about it when I started playing in the tournaments. So I started using any aid I could that was not prohibited by RHP rules. 😏
So we are to believe you are a 1600 or so OTB player but 2100 here? playing 500 points above OTB? NOBODY does that unaided.
27 Jul 15
Originally posted by RJHindsDo you 'swear by Almighty God that you tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?'
I never said I got to an RHP rating of 2100 unaided. I did start off playing unaided, but then I got more serious about it when I started playing in the tournaments. So I started using any aid I could that was not prohibited by RHP rules. 😏
28 Jul 15
Originally posted by C HessThis is evidence of common design. DNA contains much complicated information which evolution can not explain. Creationists can easily explain the origin of the information in all DNA of every plant and animal as coming from a common designer. 😏
DNA evidence for evolution
[youtube]GZCL3gv9kEM[/youtube]
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
28 Jul 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYou can't test it, and it's not the expected outcome of a common designer. Take the first example where humans have 23 and other apes have 24 chromosomes. The fact that chromosome two in humans looks just like two chromosomes in chimps fused together makes no sense from a designer perspective, but is perfectly explained from an evolutionary perspective. There is literally nothing about DNA that should have us question evolutionary descent from a common ancestor, but it's a very weird design were it put together that way from the start. Two centromeres in one chromosome? Two unused telomeres at the center of the same chromosome? It makes no designer sense at all to put junk like that in a chromosome.
This is evidence of common design. DNA contains much complicated information which evolution can not explain. Creationists can easily explain the origin of the information in all DNA of every plant and animal as coming from a common designer. 😏
There are many examples of DNA problems like that for a designer advocate, that fits perfectly with the expected outcome of evolutionary processes. Add to that the testability of evolutionary explanations, and creationism falls head first into the bin of religion, while evolutionary theory stands as strong in science as ever before.
DNA is not a problem for evolution, but one of the pillars on which it rests.
29 Jul 15
3 edits
Originally posted by C HessYes, it can be tested. It is being tested right now by information technology scientists. They have been testing the origin of information for years. And all tests indicate information in language form is always a result of intelligent design. No exceptions.
You can't test it, and it's not the expected outcome of a common designer. Take the first example where humans have 23 and other apes have 24 chromosomes. The fact that chromosome two in humans looks just like two chromosomes in chimps fused together makes no sense from a designer perspective, but is perfectly explained from an evolutionary perspective. There ...[text shortened]... as ever before.
DNA is not a problem for evolution, but one of the pillars on which it rests.
Just because chromosome two in humans looks just like two chromosomes in chimps fused together doesn't mean that it was fused together and does not prove evolution or disprove creation.
CHROMOSOME 2 EVIDENCE DISINTEGRATING
Chromosome Fusion Argument Debunked By Geneticist
CHROMOSOME 2 EVIDENCE FOR CREATION
Human - Chimp Link Broken
01 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYou can't expect a creationist apologist to do real science, they are trying to prove a point by twisting science to their ends. You know that full well but continue to push these bogus video's of pseudoscientific nonsense, and yes, we know she has a Phd in molecular genetics.
Wonder of DNA By Dr. Georgia Purdom
[youtube]B1_pOc1tYlc[/youtube]
It just shows she is not coming into science wanting truth, but only proving that which is unprovable, working with the likes of Ken Ham and his bunch. This is not even close to real science, it is starting with a built in bias and all efforts tuned to prove that POV.
That worked well in the tenth century when all that was 'established' fact. Today, it is pure fakery.
01 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseIt is actually the atheist evolutionists that are trying to prove a point by twisting science to their ends. 😏
You can't expect a creationist apologist to do real science, they are trying to prove a point by twisting science to their ends. You know that full well but continue to push these bogus video's of pseudoscientific nonsense, and yes, we know she has a Phd in molecular genetics.
It just shows she is not coming into science wanting truth, but only proving ...[text shortened]... worked well in the tenth century when all that was 'established' fact. Today, it is pure fakery.
The Near Genius
01 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsThey actually follow the scientific method to the letter. If evidence comes out there is a 200 million year old parakeet, all bets are off, otherwise the logic and evidence leads anyone not biased to pervert science to force a pre-conceived outcome, such as creationism. All you can do is point to more and more stupid video's which are every one bogus. If you post it, it is bogus.
It is actually the atheist evolutionists that are trying to prove a point by twisting science to their ends. 😏
The Near Genius