c.o.e. and woman bishops.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Dream on brother.

haha, its no dream, get your Sassenach butt up here for New year, get a kilt, go to a
Ceilidh and become a babe magnet, you know its true.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
haha, its no dream, get your Sassenach butt up here for New year, get a kilt, go to a
Ceilidh and become a babe magnet, you know its true.

Rob, when your as handsome and as in shape as my good self, a casual glance accompanied with a smile and a wink is enough to do the trick.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Rob, when your as handsome and as in shape as my good self, a casual glance accompanied with a smile and a wink is enough to do the trick.

dude i am not talking about going to a gay bar, a ceilidh, with ladies! 😛

Originally posted by stellspalfie
do you think rosa parks should have just gone and found a bus company that let black people sit where they wanted ?

What does that have to do with people attending a church they dislike the
rules of?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
What does that have to do with people attending a church they dislike the
rules of?
Kelly

Who cares what that church does, if you do not
like the way they do things, find one that goes along with your views if they are
that important to you.

your implication here is that if woman dont like the rules of the church. rather than change the church they are in they should go and find a church that does. i think its fair to draw a parallel with rosa parks. should she have gone and found a different bus company, or moved to a country without inequality??? no any right minded person knows you should stand up and fight against inequality. the woman of the c.o.e should stand up for their rights and fight the inequality of their church.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
haha, its no dream, get your Sassenach butt up here for New year, get a kilt, go to a
Ceilidh and become a babe magnet, you know its true.

the woman do like a kilt, its true. but we all know in the bitter cold of bonnie scotland that the woman, when looking under the sporran are always disappointed to find a twig rather than log to warm their hearths.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
the woman do like a kilt, its true. but we all know in the bitter cold of bonnie scotland that the woman, when looking under the sporran are always disappointed to find a twig rather than log to warm their hearths.

haha, thats why they knit us willy warmers! and call them Angle names like Cedric and
Spalding Wigglebottom 😛

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
haha, thats why they knit us willy warmers! and call them Angle names like Cedric and
Spalding Wigglebottom 😛

i probably shouldnt admit this but i received a knitted willy warmer for christmas once. from my grandma, she knitted all the male family members (pun intended) one for some bizarre reason one year. never game it a name though, thats just weird!!

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i probably shouldnt admit this but i received a knitted willy warmer for christmas once. from my grandma, she knitted all the male family members (pun intended) one for some bizarre reason one year. never game it a name though, thats just weird!!

Does your kid believe in Santa?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I appears to me that I am the only one who is truly interested in the scientific method
and who has gone to great lengths to avoid useless and futile speculations, basing the
integrity of my text upon soundly established empirical evidence and I make no
apologies for it, sir!

Are you like RJHinds when it comes to scientific evidence? Be truthful here. RJ poo poo's any science that tends to disprove creationism and the 10,000 odd year old Earth.

So carbon dating, in fact ANY scientific dating, is out the window as far as he is concerned even though there are thousands of creationists who happen to be scientists and are therefore in a position to discredit dating scientifically and find they cannot, those kind of pesky details he just sloughs off like a dog after a rainstorm.

So when you say you are for the scientific method, which areas do you poo poo?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Are you like RJHinds when it comes to scientific evidence? Be truthful here. RJ poo poo's any science that tends to disprove creationism and the 10,000 odd year old Earth.

So carbon dating, in fact ANY scientific dating, is out the window as far as he is concerned even though there are thousands of creationists who happen to be scientists and are theref ...[text shortened]... a rainstorm.

So when you say you are for the scientific method, which areas do you poo poo?

Rob will poo poo the following -

1. Any evidence which supports the evolution of life.
2. Any evidence which contradicts his literal interpretation of the Biblical Flood.
3. Any evidence which contradicts his view that humans have only been on the planet for a few thousand years.
4. Any evidence which contradicts his literal interpretation of Genesis. ie. Adam and Eve.

As you know well that covers probably a vast multitude of scientific fields. For him to claim he supports the scientific method is beyond hysterical and into the land of delusion.

A caveat - He accepts the universe and the earth is billions of years old.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Are you like RJHinds when it comes to scientific evidence? Be truthful here. RJ poo poo's any science that tends to disprove creationism and the 10,000 odd year old Earth.

So carbon dating, in fact ANY scientific dating, is out the window as far as he is concerned even though there are thousands of creationists who happen to be scientists and are theref ...[text shortened]... a rainstorm.

So when you say you are for the scientific method, which areas do you poo poo?

sorry? Perhaps i have not made my position clear enough,

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and
measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

In other words we must always offer evidence to substantiate our statements.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry? Perhaps i have not made my position clear enough,

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

Let me get this straight. On this very forum you admitted to be being, and i quote, 'closed minded' and 'ignorant', with regard to any science which conflicts with your religious beliefs and now he you are stating what the scientific method is or is not?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Let me get this straight. On this very forum you admitted to be being, and i quote, 'closed minded' and 'ignorant', with regard to any science which conflicts with your religious beliefs and now he you are stating what the scientific method is or is not?

I admit many things for mere expediency, but then again, i find that i am one of the
few persons that has actually attempted to read Darwins book. Have you, no? Does
that make you more or less ignorant and close minded than me?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I admit many things for mere expediency, but then again, i find that i am one of the
few persons that has actually attempted to read Darwins book. Have you, no? Does
that make you more or less ignorant and close minded than me?

You can dress it up as much as you like, but at the end of the day you don't read science books in case it diminishes your faith. Those are your words not mine.