Spirituality
03 Dec 09
04 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziSee, he forces you to play *his* game. Don't fall into that trap. Let him do the proving, not you dis-proving. He is the one who belives in something ridicolous, he should be the one defending himself. But no, he takes the passive side and force you into to active side. He says "You go prove, if not, I've won, and I'm right". And you play his game.
you can't see me but my eye is twitching right now. you are turning into a robbie and that means i will ignore you too.
you asked me to explain polystrate trees. i explained on aspect proving you your request was too general. your request should have been "explain how aspect X of polystrate trees is as it is without there being a flood" where X is actual ...[text shortened]... d kindness and willingness to debate you in the world wouldn't be enought for me to do that.
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by FabianFnaswhy are you telling me that? why do i care? i gave you a link with sound science ABSOLUTELY free of creationists, DISPROVING the flood. and you dismissed it as creationist crap. my beef with you now has nothing to do with the flood. it is related to how you could argue about a source without reading it. blindly. supporting your theory. still suporting it now. WITHOUT reading it.
If your point doesn't coincide with my point, then we are talking about different things, are we not? If you draw the topic into your direction, and I have no intention to follow you, then you have a problem, not me.
Fundamentalists can very well believe in the global flooding because it is a part of their religion, that doesn't disturb me much. But wh ...[text shortened]... in the ice cores of Greenland? Never? And why? Because that would disprove their standpoint.
tell me how is what you did different that what carrobie and galveston and any other fundamentalist do every moment of their lives? how they are given countless sources and links and evidence but dismiss it without reading them out of lazyness, fear, lack of intelligence or whatever.
i thought you were better than that
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou know what they are. Just can't explain them huh? Oh well, next...anyone else want to try?
you can't see me but my eye is twitching right now. you are turning into a robbie and that means i will ignore you too.
you asked me to explain polystrate trees. i explained on aspect proving you your request was too general. your request should have been "explain how aspect X of polystrate trees is as it is without there being a flood" where X is actual ...[text shortened]... d kindness and willingness to debate you in the world wouldn't be enought for me to do that.
04 Dec 09
3 edits
in reply to my most promising disciple, Proper Noobster.
i have given the figures, what you have written dear Noobster is just another opinion, and i note does away with the fact that many of the species you wish to include could have survived perfectly well outside of the ark, you did not, and i repeat, did not in any way invalidate what i have written, thus the statements stands, the ark could in all honesty have comfortably accommodated all the different kinds that make up the diversity which we see today.
Robbie, Glavo and God 1, Noobster Fabian And Zapansy 0
nice to see that on my return there is a virtual war ensuing, nothing like an innocent Christian to attack in order to re-galvanise your prejudices!
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziSo now we are arguing how to best show them where they are wrong. You do it your way, and I do it my way. If one of us fail, the other perhaps can teach them something. But let's not play their game, because then they will thing they've won.
why are you telling me that? why do i care? i gave you a link with sound science ABSOLUTELY free of creationists, DISPROVING the flood. and you dismissed it as creationist crap. my beef with you now has nothing to do with the flood. it is related to how you could argue about a source without reading it. blindly. supporting your theory. still suporting it no ...[text shortened]... out of lazyness, fear, lack of intelligence or whatever.
i thought you were better than that
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI given you a proof. You don't want to accept it. You've all lost. Go learn some science.
i have given the figures, what you have written dear Noobster is just another opinion, and i note does away with the fact that many of the species you wish to include could have survived perfectly well outside of the ark, you did not, and i repeat, did not in any way invalidate what i have written, thus the statements stands, the ark could in all hon ...[text shortened]... ensuing, nothing like an innocent Christian to attack in order to re-galvanise your prejudices!
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasuntil he turns into a robbie in my view and i resort to ignore him completely i would be kind (and rewind, it had to be said.)
See, he forces you to play *his* game. Don't fall into that trap. Let him do the proving, not you dis-proving. He is the one who belives in something ridicolous, he should be the one defending himself. But no, he takes the passive side and force you into to active side. He says "You go prove, if not, I've won, and I'm right". And you play his game.
like i did with robbie until he pissed me off and i gave up on him, i will try to take any argument he has and debate it in a civilized manner. he already refused to debate me in the thread i created about abe. we will see what he does here.
i decently explained i cannot be asked to research all biology and guess what supports his insane theory. like you said, it is his job to form a statement not me to guess what that statement is and form it for him. but i would do it in a civilized manner.
i am quickly running out of civilised galveston.
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziIf you give up on him, then you hands over a easy win. Or so they think.
until he turns into a robbie in my view and i resort to ignore him completely i would be kind (and rewind, it had to be said.)
like i did with robbie until he pissed me off and i gave up on him, i will try to take any argument he has and debate it in a civilized manner. he already refused to debate me in the thread i created about abe. we will see what h ...[text shortened]... im. but i would do it in a civilized manner.
i am quickly running out of civilised galveston.
This is not about winning or losing. This is about learn something. When robbie and galvestone have learnt something, then we're all winners.
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by galveston75you know Galvo i have almost given up on them myself, but despite their endless rants, lack of any substantiating evidence, insults and ignominious behaviour, we must try to understand their perspective, for they have no spiritual comprehension. This is self evident from their constant necessity for materialistic evidence, which when provided, does not suit their perspective and they whine about something else, and then something else. To you and I these are realities, for we have come to know and believe that Gods word is truth, that Christ spoke truth and that truth is what we are trying to establish. But you are correct, when it takes on an altogether sinister mode, then i think its time to step back, let them fight it out, for as you are witnessing, it becomes a battle of egos, who has got the biggest, Fabian or Zapansy, Raj or Karoly Poly.
You know Robbie, I think we're going about this wrong. These guys are not here to learn and that's obvious. These guys are here to try and put the burden of proof on us and as well as others who know what the Bible says about the flood. But more importantly what the whole earth says about the flood with the fossil record and with the sediment layers one ...[text shortened]... see the evidence.
Lets see if they can come up with an explination for polystrate trees???
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasstill don't get it. this is offtopic. this is about you and me. more about you.
So now we are arguing how to best show them where they are wrong. You do it your way, and I do it my way. If one of us fail, the other perhaps can teach them something. But let's not play their game, because then they will thing they've won.
i gave ytou a link. you didn't read it. yet you dismissed it as creationist crap. it wasn't creationist crap. penquin confirmed it wasn't creationist crap. properknob confirmed it wasn't creationist crap.
this is about how you debated. hopefully only in this thread and because you were at work and didn't have time to read that link. in which case you still should have said "thanx for the links, i will look them up when i have the time"
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasi given up on robbie that he could learn something. he refuses. so far galveston is heading straight for robbie in the Lala land. where they will sing and praise whatever they are whorshiping. i know it is not christian like thinking but i would like to think that if we both go to heaven, they would get crapier parking because of their stupidity.
If you give up on him, then you hands over a easy win. Or so they think.
This is not about winning or losing. This is about learn something. When robbie and galvestone have learnt something, then we're all winners.
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziStill waiting of the proof that all of you say is there...
i given up on robbie that he could learn something. he refuses. so far galveston is heading straight for robbie in the Lala land. where they will sing and praise whatever they are whorshiping. i know it is not christian like thinking but i would like to think that if we both go to heaven, they would get crapier parking because of their stupidity.