Originally posted by no1marauderAs I've already said, it was not so much linguistic somersaults as linguistic rocking on one's feet. By your own admission, 'many' and 'quite a few' do have a subtle difference in meaning.
No, the fact that you attacked me by accusing me of using linguistic somersaults and now use the "impreciseness of language" to somehow excuse this patently false charge. The two statements did not imply anything different at all and only a nitpicking jerk spoiling for a petty semantic fight would say they did. If you REALLY want to get into it, you've g ...[text shortened]... te number. - Webster's New American Dictionary (I think; I'm missing the cover).
So what are you ranting on about?
Originally posted by no1marauderExcept for the "minor" problem that the geological evidence is overwhelming that there was no worldwide flood.
Except for the "minor" problem that the geological evidence is overwhelming that there was no worldwide flood. Why is it sooooooooo important for people of your ilk to believe that every story told in the Bible is literally true? Jesus had no problem using metaphor and allegories; why would the writers of Genesis be limited to mere recording devices?
...[text shortened]... ticle in a professional journal and saying you can't be bothered to make available your data.
Your '"minor" problem' itself has a minor problem: it lacks any evidence to support it. There are qualified and reputable geologists who conclude that evidence points directly at a world-wide flood catastrophe such as is depicted in the Bible. Here is one source for you to peruse:
http://www.biblicalgeology.net/
Why is it sooooooooo important for people of your ilk to believe that every story told in the Bible is literally true?
It's that pesky authority thing, I guess.
Jesus had no problem using metaphor and allegories; why would the writers of Genesis be limited to mere recording devices?
Because it isn't presented as such, nor is it quoted as such by others in the Bible, including the Lord Jesus Christ.
Any legitimate scholarly published study makes the sources of its data available. Try publishing an article in a professional journal and saying you can't be bothered to make available your data.
I'm sure if you were to read the book, you can find the sources the author used in compiling his study. From what I understand of 'professional' studies, the sources are usually offered in the back of the book (although sometimes they are on the same page as cited). Let me know if you need any more help in this area, as I know how important precision is to you.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLMFAO! "Qualified and reputable geologists"??? From your "expert source":
[b]Except for the "minor" problem that the geological evidence is overwhelming that there was no worldwide flood.
Your '"minor" problem' itself has a minor problem: it lacks any evidence to support it. There are qualified and reputable geologists who conclude that evidence points directly at a world-wide flood catastrophe such as is depicted in the B ...[text shortened]... if you need any more help in this area, as I know how important precision is to you.[/b]
I have a Bachelor of Science majoring in Earth Science with first class honours, a Bachelor of Engineering with first class honours in Mechanical Engineering and a Doctorate in Mechanical Engineering.
You're easily impressed.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHTry reading the book of Genesis VERY VERY SLOWLY.
[b]Except for the "minor" problem that the geological evidence is overwhelming that there was no worldwide flood.
Your '"minor" problem' itself has a minor problem: it lacks any evidence to support it. There are qualified and reputable geologists who conclude that evidence points directly at a world-wide flood catastrophe such as is depicted in the B ...[text shortened]... if you need any more help in this area, as I know how important precision is to you.[/b]
There is evidence of the flood, and the waters that ravished the earth.
Originally posted by no1marauderNow the King of Quibbling is rolling his muscles ....... 😛 .... very impressive indeed ......
LMFAO! "Qualified and reputable geologists"??? From your "expert source":
I have a Bachelor of Science majoring in Earth Science with first class honours, a Bachelor of Engineering with first class honours in Mechanical Engineering and a Doctorate in Mechanical Engineering.
You're easily impressed.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLmao
[b]Except for the "minor" problem that the geological evidence is overwhelming that there was no worldwide flood.
Your '"minor" problem' itself has a minor problem: it lacks any evidence to support it. There are qualified and reputable geologists who conclude that evidence points directly at a world-wide flood catastrophe such as is depicted in the B ...[text shortened]... if you need any more help in this area, as I know how important precision is to you.[/b]
Radiometric dating secrets
Granite grain size
Digging into Paleosols
Skeptical of Sisters
Coal: A Memorial
Biblical Geology
How models work
Application to GAB
Biblical Chronology
Classification Criteria
Christ that's a funny site , Thank you for the laugh.
Originally posted by no1marauderApaarently not, for your attempt to impress me has failed. What was your point, again?
LMFAO! "Qualified and reputable geologists"??? From your "expert source":
I have a Bachelor of Science majoring in Earth Science with first class honours, a Bachelor of Engineering with first class honours in Mechanical Engineering and a Doctorate in Mechanical Engineering.
You're easily impressed.
Originally posted by frogstompYou are entirely welcome. And your refutation is, what, exactly?
Lmao
Radiometric dating secrets
Granite grain size
Digging into Paleosols
Skeptical of Sisters
Coal: A Memorial
Biblical Geology
How models work
Application to GAB
Biblical Chronology
Classification Criteria
Christ that's a funny site , Thank you for the laugh.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHType your contentions out and I will respond to them. I just gave you a most informative site about the validity of radiometric testing , written by a Ph.D that works in that field. After you read it ( if you do ) then you will understand why I laughed at that idiotic site you had posted.
You are entirely welcome. And your refutation is, what, exactly?
And I'm still laughing ,,,, hahahahaha
Originally posted by frogstompType what contentions out? You are insisting that every source which supports your view is to be trusted and all others are idiots, regardless of their titles, letters behind their names or level of expertise. There are academically-honored men and women on the many sides that this issue presents, in the respective fields which may apply.
Type your contentions out and I will respond to them. I just gave you a most informative site about the validity of radiometric testing , written by a Ph.D that works in that field. After you read it ( if you do ) then you will understand why I laughed at that idiotic site you had posted.
And I'm still laughing ,,,, hahahahaha
Equally worth noting is how wrong 'experts' have been in the past, again regardless of their affiliations and/or persuasion. The person responsible for the "idiotic site" which I offered has forgotten more about the subject than you or No1 will ever know. To arrogantly assume that you can take random bits of information from other sites and amalgamate them into serious refutation of the information he has provided, reveals more about your commitment to scientific inquiry than you may have wished to reveal.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSilly boy, your "expert" is a joke. Just another junk scientist. Please don't try your silly attempt to jawbone credentials for him.
Type what contentions out? You are insisting that every source which supports your view is to be trusted and all others are idiots, regardless of their titles, letters behind their names or level of expertise. There are academically-honored men and women on the many sides that this issue presents, in the respective fields which may apply.
Equally wort reveals more about your commitment to scientific inquiry than you may have wished to reveal.
I gave you a Ph.D and you give me ox-crap.
Try and understand , if you can, you are following the wrong path, trying to prove the begats from a purloined book isn't science. REAL science won't be surpressed in it's effort to explain the universe, the earth and how we got here and there's nothing you idiots can do to stop it, except sit around deceiving each other.