02 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerWow! That is some claim you make! Would you mind backing up the statement?
Wow! That is some claim you make! Would you mind backing up the statement? Nah... don't worry let me let me just use one of af the many examples of "evidence" found to support evolutionary theory. Let's see...
"What is claimed t ...[text shortened]... dence" for the TOE. I'm certain it will be shaky at best. :-)
Sure. I'll have to put some time into it though. I don't have that time at this moment.
I like how you bring forth some evidence you feel is particularly weak and then criticise it. Why don't you let me argue my own position? And why don't you argue your own? Those quotes mean you copied and pasted 95% of your post again don't they?
I don't care if you use the arguments a website uses. Don't just copy paste them though - present them yourself. It's really insulting to both myself and you for you to show that you are unwilling or incapable to write for yourself.
02 Mar 05
5 edits
I've just made a decision. Dj, unless you write your own posts, I will probably not respond to them. You can quote outside sources as long as you use them to support your own points, and as long as you give the source clear credit. However, long blocks of text with self contained arguments which you copy and paste are insulting to me and I will not give them any significant attention.
If you really want to use other peoples' writing instead of your own, here's my answer.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
If you find any weaknesses with that website's arguments, I can refer you to some other websites.
My copied website addresses can beat up your copy pasted plagiarized posts!!!
02 Mar 05
Originally posted by RedmikeOk. I'll back up the opposite claim then.
Nope, I guess the answer is that he can't back up his claim.
No surprise there then.
According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
The article in question is Newsweek magazine, 1987-JUN-29, Page 23.
02 Mar 05
Originally posted by Darfiusyou probably have a redacted bible, where people decided ' that can't mean that , because that means that God is a bull god' and switched EL to God.
Dude, is it fun to hide behind conspiracy theories that continually encounter the power of the Bible's truth and fall by the wayside?
Truth is truth Darfius and the TRUTH is : EL was the god of the isrealites.
02 Mar 05
Originally posted by frogstompYou're starting to bore me. All you make are sweeping, unsubstantiated claims.
you probably have a redacted bible, where people decided ' that can't mean that , because that means that God is a bull god' and switched EL to God.
Truth is truth Darfius and the TRUTH is : EL was the god of the isrealites.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
02 Mar 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungO.K. But if it is entirely relevant to the topic that we are discussing and if I think it is entirely well presented and I if I don't have the time to rewrite the entire section, do you mind? If so then I'll try to make it briefer. But maybe we could stick to the subject being discussed. Many times I have posted stuff that is really relevant to the topic and at the same time refuting many of your claims, and then you totally overlook it and always seem to ask if it is copied and pasted instead of responding to the evidence I lay before you. To me it seems as if you don't have an answer and then you take a dig at me for "cutting and pasting."
I don't care if you use the arguments a website uses. Don't just copy paste them though - present them yourself. It's really insulting to both myself and you for you to show that you are unwilling or incapable to write for yourself.[/b]
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
02 Mar 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI don't understand this. I give you a lot of stuff that is very relevant to the topic, in fact it totally discredits everything you say. Then you overlook this and instead pick up the last sentence which is not really relevant to the topic and you oppose the claim. I don't know if you are trying to make it seem as if all the rest is discredited by the fact that you only oppose the last sentence? But maybe I should rephrase the last sentence to "...the majority of scientists that have noted the above information...", because it seems like you totally ignored it.
Ok. I'll back up the opposite claim then.
[b]According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
The article in question is Newsweek magazine, 1987-JUN-29, Page 23.[/b]
02 Mar 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe point is that if one of your statements can be shown to be false, which it has been, then it undermines everything else you say.
I don't understand this. I give you a lot of stuff that is very relevant to the topic, in fact it totally discredits everything you say. Then you overlook this and instead pick up the last sentence which is not really relevant to the topic and you oppose the claim. I don't know if you are trying to make it seem as if all the rest is discredited by the fa ...[text shortened]... ntists that have noted the above information...", because it seems like you totally ignored it.
02 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusELohim, EL Shaddai, IsraEL, MichaEL, GabriEL, lot's more but a bible scholar like you should already know some of them, I suggest you read the footnotes.
You're starting to bore me. All you make are sweeping, unsubstantiated claims.
Btw EL in is used 2700 times in the old testiment, and think what you like , but EL is the bull god was Baal's dad , Asterah's,
hubby .
Baal was hated by the israELites as was Asterah , but EL the bull god gets the honor of having the israELite's deity named after him?????
talk about irony.
Sweeping? hardly ,, just one and that's substaniated by the OT itself,
02 Mar 05
Originally posted by frogstompAs I've explained before, the early pagan religions were all aware of who the true God was, but either in defiance or coersion, they worshipped a corrupt form of the true God, which is precisely what happened with El, the bull god.
ELohim, EL Shaddai, IsraEL, MichaEL, GabriEL, lot's more but a bible scholar like you should already know some of them, I suggest you read the footnotes.
Btw EL in is used 2700 times in the old testiment, and think what you like , but EL is the bull god was Baal's dad , Asterah's,
hubby .
Baal was hated by the israELites as was As ...[text shortened]... ony.
Sweeping? hardly ,, just one and that's substaniated by the OT itself,
For instance, there is good evidence that Gilgamesh is none other than Nimrod, from Genesis.
02 Mar 05
Originally posted by Darfiusman, you don't even come close
As I've explained before, the early pagan religions were all aware of who the true God was, but either in defiance or coersion, they worshipped a corrupt form of the true God, which is precisely what happened with El, the bull god.
For instance, there is good evidence that Gilgamesh is none other than Nimrod, from Genesis.
After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridug. In Eridug, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28800 years. Alaljar ruled for 36000 years. 2 kings; they ruled for 64800 years. Then Eridug fell and the kingship was taken to Bad-tibira. In Bad-tibira, En-men-lu-ana ruled for 43200 years. En-men-gal-ana ruled for 28800 years. Dumuzid, the shepherd, ruled for 36000 years. 3 kings; they ruled for 108000 years. Then Bad-tibira fell (?) and the kingship was taken to Larag. In Larag, En-sipad-zid-ana ruled for 28800 years. 1 king; he ruled for 28800 years. Then Larag fell (?) and the kingship was taken to Zimbir. In Zimbir, En-men-dur-ana became king; he ruled for 21000 years. 1 king; he ruled for 21000 years. Then Zimbir fell (?) and the kingship was taken to Curuppag. In Curuppag, Ubara-Tutu became king; he ruled for 18600 years. 1 king; he ruled for 18600 years. In 5 cities 8 kings; they ruled for 241200 years. Then the flood swept over. (sumerian kings list )
Gilgamesh meets the Flood heroe sometime after the flood, Nimrod would more likely be Sargon. also you ought to remember , Abraham was born in Ur so certainly had access to the Sumerian stories.
02 Mar 05
Originally posted by frogstompHow did you disprove Gilgamesh was Nimrod? Both existed after the Flood.
man, you don't even come close
After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridug. In Eridug, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28800 years. Alaljar ruled for 36000 years. 2 kings; they ruled for 64800 years. Then Eridug fell and the kingship was taken to Bad-tibira. In Bad-tibira, En-men-lu-ana ruled for 43200 years. En-men-gal-ana ...[text shortened]... Abraham was born in Ur so certainly had access to the Sumerian stories.
By the way, Abraham would have had access to Sumerian stories, and they would have had access to real events.