10 Jan 09
Originally posted by black beetlehe done me beetle dude, i fell for a two mover near the end, he was a pawn and the exchange up, but i made a move that i knew instantly after making it that it was a mistake and he done me, like ancient Bruce of old, i must skulk away into my cave and ponder the spiders web!
O ye numptie leggedy beastie
ye ll need moarr tthan jus luck to survife that killer😵
10 Jan 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's ok;
he done me beetle dude, i fell for a two mover near the end, he was a pawn and the exchange up, but i made a move that i knew instantly after making it that it was a mistake and he done me, like ancient Bruce of old, i must skulk away into my cave and ponder the spiders web!
He is extremely strong. His weak point is solely that he is loaded with too many games and that, sometimes, he rushes in, eager for a spectacular kill. He is quite well balanced on theory, he has a big diversity of attacking systems and he plays the endgame with sharp accuracy. I consider paul one of my chess teachers. He forces me to exhausting analyis after the opening, and sometimes he is getting out of the theory at quite critical timing.
That killer Paulbachmanfromfics, along with Mathurine and, above all, ardhenhu chaudhuri, are three of the best and more crafty chessplayers I had the chance to play with. I never turn down the chance to play against them. No matter of the result, I am always a winner because thanks to them I learn a lot🙂
10 Jan 09
Originally posted by black beetleyes he is very strong, however this game was lost not on Pauls strength, although he is truly as you say, formidable, but on my mistakes, two rather costly ones, first i lost the exchange, another move i saw after the event, what a numptie and a simple tactical blunder at the end. he was with in my grasp at one point, struggling for mobility of his pieces. i will give him another chance to redeem himself, this time he had better come up with the readies, ill give him white just to give him a chance!😛
It's ok;
He is extremely strong. His weak point is solely that he is loaded with too many games and that, sometimes, he rushes in, eager for a spectacular kill. He is quite well balanced on theory, he has a big diversity of attacking systems and he plays the endgame with sharp accuracy. I consider paul one of my chess teachers. He forces me to exhaus ...[text shortened]... inst them. No matter of the result, I am always a winner because thanks to them I learn a lot🙂
10 Jan 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh I checked the game and I had a small talk too wi him ye numptie wi ae skully fullovIernBrrru, and this miserable atheist has the feelin that ye leggedy beastie d better awsk'im to kif ye is opinion too for a better evaluation, that is 😵
yes he is very strong, however this game was lost not on Pauls strength, although he is truly as you say, formidable, but on my mistakes, two rather costly ones, first i lost the exchange, another move i saw after the event, what a numptie and a simple tactical blunder at the end. he was with in my grasp at one point, struggling for mobility of his ...[text shortened]... his time he had better come up with the readies, ill give him white just to give him a chance!😛
But ye played OK😵
01 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by David C==================================
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b]snip for if there was true honesty, given the scandalously improbable chance of life having arisen from non living matter snip
I've never understood the theistic objection to "life arising from non-living matter". Isn't that precisely what Genesis 2:7 states? So, the authors of Genesis, ign theory" is unalterable, despite the input of any new data. Maybe I'm missing something.[/b]
I've never understood the theistic objection to "life arising from non-living matter". Isn't that precisely what Genesis 2:7 states? So, the authors of Genesis, ignorant of biology, and unable to form a theory based on anything other than oral folklore, come up with this idea. "It was Holy magic".
====================================
What Genesis explains is that all CREATED lives have their source of creation from a Life which is UNCREATED. The UNCREATED Life preceeded and is responsible for the existence of all CREATED lives.
The first verse in the Bible says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1)
The fact is put forth that preceeding the entire unverse is this UNCREATED and Divine Life - God. If it is not clear from Genesis that God is UNCREATED Life it surely becomes clear in passages like Psalm 90 where it says " ... from eternity to eternity, You are God" (Psalm 90:2b)
Or we may realize God's eternal livingness from Isaiah 57:15 - "For thus says the high and exalted One, Who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy ...."
The UNCREATED and eternal Life is the source of all other lives in existence. That is what the Bible teaches and reveals. This fact can be appreciated even if mankind should multiply his scientific knowledge in the future 10 fold.
I don't think that because it was uttered in a pre-biological science era that that makes it less true. Some truth just is not effected by the encrease of scientific knowledge.
========================
In what way is the Genesis explanation different than current scientific hypotheses on abiogenesis? Other than the fact that the Genesis "theory" is unalterable, despite the input of any new data. Maybe I'm missing something.
=====================================
In abiogenesis life is preceeded by that which is non-living. In Genesis life is preceeded by a living Divine and Uncreated Life.
I think we would have to call the creation of biological life a miracle.
I think the foundations of life on this planet are founded in the miraculous done by the same God who "in the beginning ... created" everything.
We are not forbidden to explore on and on and try to figure out how life arose. But I think God has informed us and in such a way that it resonates to people of various cultures in various eras of human history.