Search results

Aha! I knew you aren't a man of your word. You're still posting here, even after telling us you were going to just move on. Good look. It makes one wonder whether, when you told me your posting "seems to be" causing me "discomfort," perhaps you were just projecting. Hmmm?

So tell me: is this a bit of a 'cheap shot'? Well? Is it? Hello? Hello? Well, sorry I missed you. I guess you're still at banned rehearsal.

Don't worry about it.

I asked @blueboy: blueboy: <NO ANSWER> blueboy: <NO ANSWER> blueboy: <NO ANSWER>

Oh, OK. So long. Don't forget to not write.

You seem to have fast forgotten why @Derf linked to the article in the first place. You had stupidly made this false claim, remember: And, in the article you say you read, we read a refutation of that falsehood you tried to hand us: So, do you now want to continue on in your stupidity by...

Why do you feel it needful to make a personal attack on me by calling me "irascible"?

Here, you seem to be admitting that, when you talk about the Bible in these threads, you are giving us no interpretation of it. On what basis do you choose to call "scientists," those whom you choose to call "scientists"? What's the difference between evidence and what you call "demonstrable...

Really, how could the ad homines non-argument you're trying to hand us, here, ever be of any use to you? Especially when your audience is not the least bit impressed by your reverently calling those from whom you take your cue, "highly educated scholars"? Your reverence for those whom you...

About 3,500 years ago a flood of sorts laid down some sedimentary Egyptians who just couldn't leave well enough alone.

Is it rational to use the word, "findings," in reference to something you say you do not accept? I mean, if your "science" really does find that X is true, then why would you not accept that X is true? If you find, contrary to the dictum of your "science," that X is not true, then how could it...

Is whatever it is you call "inner spiritual truth" effable? I mean, can it be/is it expressed verbally, as can be truth—true propositions—via declarative sentences? Here's a declarative sentence from Genesis 7:7: Either Noah, etc., went into the ark, or they did not. Is it your view that...

What do you mean by that? That Christians did not write the OT? (But who says the OT was written by Christians?) That Christians don't believe the OT? (If Christians don't believe the OT, then what is your grievance?) That Christians should not believe the OT? (If so, why shouldn't Christians...

blueboy, we all encourage you to get out of the Mystery Machine.

Herod today, gone tomorrow. Sorry. I have little self-inhibition when it comes to airing bad puns. I should probably get agrippa myself.

To what? To what are you referring by that phrase? To what are you referring by that phrase? Is it meaningful?

After God created Adam. Is that difficult for you? "another piece of help meet"?? What do you mean by that, troll? "potential help meets"?? What do you mean by that, troll? To what are you referring by your phrase, "potential help meets," troll? To the beasts of the field and the fowls...

What do you mean by "contradict each other," Professor Poser? Since you're dumb enough to tell us that a false proposition can contradict a false proposition, please tell us exactly what it would be for the false proposition, X, to contradict the false proposition, Y. Perhaps you're also dumb...

What (if anything) do you mean by that? When you're not using language to affirm false propositions, you're using language in a cognitively meaningless way; far be it from me to assume that you must be speaking meaningfully, just because you say stuff. And so long as you're speaking...

True. And that affords you no help wherewith to prop up your error. As @JudgeRightly noted, God formed the creatures for Adam to have dominion over. But, contrary to your error, it does not suggest that God formed the creatures after He had formed Adam. In verse 18, God is talking about...