Posted on 06/10/2006 4:33:28 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Further in so doing, in that very same mocking reply of yours, you forbade him to refer to what is -- in any court -- put at the same level of weighing as direct evidence. That is, of the reliable sworn testimony of reliable witnesses.
The fact your arsenal is full of nothing but BS provides you no high ground. You are the one out of your league here, sonny boy. You need to understand science before you can comment on it.
Don't ever deign to talk to me that way again. Ever.
Or what? You gonna report me? Your 4-year old style threat holds no water here. You are the one who is out of line. I suggest you not attack me or anyone again. And I suggest you lay off the booze before posting.
Says who? Prove using direct evidence it is God's word. Please show me where you can link the Bible to God. Please provide supporting evidence. Please leave "belief" out of it, since it cannot be proven.
Give me scientific proof of God. And your "dumbs**t" would get you kicked out of the forum if you posted it on the Religion forum.
Provide one.
LOL!!!
Moreover, in most courts today the "swearing in" of a witness is done with hand upon a Holy Scripture. What do you say about that?
Have one come on the forum. Let them post. Let them directly "testify." Writing hundreds or thousands of years after said prophets have died are at best rank heresay. Your assertion cannot be proved.
Moreover, in most courts today the "swearing in" of a witness is done with hand upon a Holy Scripture. What do you say about that?
"So Help Me God" has been a term that is used out of practice. It has no legal weight. A Muslim who is sworn to lie if it fathers his cause or an atheist/hindu/buddhist/etc who feels that the Christian Bible has no sway over them certainly is not morally bound by that act. That is why we have perjury laws.
Actually, my statement was to point out that if you can't even get the most elementary legal position right, with someone who purports to be an attorney as your director and source, how can you get the difficult scientific stuff right? Maybe DI's scientists are much more intelligent than their attorneys? But in the legal world, juries are instructed that, if a witness is lying about one thing, the jury is entitled to disregard their entire testimony. Based on the DI's complete misrepresentation of the the trial and subsequent events and the previous misrepresentations of science, I disbelieve everything they say. They will say anything to promote their agenda.
Haggis actually made me $10,000 once.
I had the opportunity to visit an old uncle on the occasion of his 93rd birthday. He suffered from some variation of hypertensive dementia and rarely talked or did most things.
My cousin is one of those really vegetarians and fixed us dinner. I nibble at some brown veggie gunk and look around and there's my uncle feeding himself. I say "Look he's feeding himself and it looks like he really likes the haggis". A few seconds we thought he was choking and all got up. He spit out his food and said "She told me it was chicken". And he starts laughing - just is belly shook and his eyes teared. Every time he looked at me he'd mumble "haggis" and start giggling.
Well I though little about it and about a year later he died from the second law of thermodynamics. I called my cousin and talked to her and she said his last word was "haggis" with a belly shake.
About a year later I get a cashier's check for $10,000 from his estate. So I called my cousin with "What's this all about?" She said that he laughed regularly his last year and he sau my name or haggis. She didn't understand the joke, but wanted to leave me this money.
Poor woman. She doesn't understand what haggis is, how bad her cooking is or the (mostly deserved) awful reputation haggis has.
Sometimes you say the right thing at the right time. I'm glad he had a laugh at his daughter's expense and that he found humor in his last days.
They had perjury laws in those days too. Falsely tesitifying and falsely prophecing were capital offences. We also have a long trustworthy chain of custody for the recorded testimony.
Still, you haven't addressed your own insistence that the good poster to whom you mockingly replied accept your proffer of accepting as given fact your selected interpretation of indirect evidence of events that transpired billions of years ago. You see it is not just indirect evidence you have asked to be accepted, it is one particular interpretation of that evidence that you are asking to be accepted. Yet you deny his use of reliable sworn testimony from older hearings, older but certainly much less old than billions of years, mind you.
There are three problems with that statement. One, the impact science had on the origin of western culture was less at that time than currently, and two, the scientists of the day were the ones that insisted their science be kept separate from their beliefs. The third problem is in your use of a genetic fallacy, that the belief system commonly held several hundred years ago should determine how we proceed today.
The Christians of the past who were also practicing scientists were well aware of the need to divorce belief from practice. Why do creationists of today insist on changing that practice?
What *do* you think of ID, then? And how is that opinion formed for you, by you?
Now, theres a great story...and you wound up being 10K richer...thanks...
How about that you have exposed yourself as a dumbs**t. Again.
Anyone can choose to use a Koran or affirm on nothing at all.
That is a distinct possibility. Fully 1/4 of my heritage are haggis eating Scots. Of my grandfather's 5 brothers, 3 were missionaries to Africa. My grandfather was the family's first agnostic/deist (depends on who you ask).
Oh, and please remember that I am only talking about the POST-trial comments, papers and the huge scientific/atheistic conspiracy (/sarc) that the DI believes in. They called for evolutionists to be placed under oath and placed in front of a jury. When it actually happened and they were about to be placed under the gun, they ran for the hills and left Dover to a big legal bill.
I, for one, do not welcome the brutal.
It is not a hard question to answer, is it? What is your opinion of ID?
What is the difference between one of the 'prophets' in the Bible and any one of the staring characters in Homer's Iliad?
"Moreover, in most courts today the "swearing in" of a witness is done with hand upon a Holy Scripture. What do you say about that?
Putting a hand on the Bible was an attempt to frighten the witness into telling the truth. Unfortunately it has been a dismal failure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.