Posted on 12/04/2009 9:55:41 PM PST by Gordon Greene
Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot. Got it.
Since you are squeeling about it you don't apprecite it either. I didn't expect you two to have so much in common... (How are you doing on learning that Rosary?)
I don’t deny that there’s anti-Catholic bigotry on FR.
“Since you are squeeling about it”
Squealing is my word for the night, Buck. And if you’re going to use it refer to my previous post so you can at least spell it.
Ah, so we’re employing the “No True Scotsman” variant of the definition of Christian, I see.
What kind of scientist are you?
You make assumptions about things that you have no proof for.
You refuse to provide sources and links to back up blanket statements you make about things.
For all the evolutionists whine about *mountains of evidence* you have provided none.
I sure hope that you practice science better than you debate on FR and that nobody’s life depends on your scientific prowess.
Been there, done that. Don't need to any more.
Pay attention, I am only going to post this once. To "squeal" means to make a noise. To "squeel" means to tattle..... (what a maroon).
Speaking of maroons,.......
Would you care to provide a link to the dictionary, any dictionary, that provides the definition for the word *squeel*?
Impact, scale, subject matter, time of authorship, depth or length are not relevent to whether something is accurate.
There is no evidence for any or anyone’s divinity.
The Bible, in Numbers 21:25-26, describes Moses attacking and taking the Ammonite city of Heshbon. Archeology shows that there was no such settlement, let along a city, prior to 1200 BC and would not have been around during Moses’ life.
“Since you are squeeling about it you don’t apprecite it either. “
Dearest Buck (it’s interesting you didn’t notice I called you that in post #183, Buck),
(This is in response to your post, #187)
Even though the context belies your “quick... look it up!” dictionary definition, I’ll take it for granted you could have meant metmom was “tattling” on you for God knows what.
What do you have for me concerning the word, ‘apprecite’? Is it some sort of undiscovered mineral?
You criticize science for supposedly thinking that it has all the answers and then, when the absurd unreality of such a claim is pointed out, criticize them admitting that they don’t know everything and ridiculing their attempts to aquire knowledge.
Ever considered that your arguments lack cohesion?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=squeel
“Would you care to provide a link to the dictionary, any dictionary, that provides the definition for the word *squeel*?”
Squeel (Onomatopoeia):
The sound idiots make when they can’t think of anything else to say.
How ludicrous to claim that just because they haven't found something yet, it means that it didn't exist.
Archaeology can show no such thing. It can show if something DID exist by finding the remains, but can't show that something didn't exist because it didn't find the remains.
Honestly, if this is what passes for logic and reasoning by evolutionists, it's no wonder they think that the ToE is watertight.
I’ve yet to conjure up such a story. There isn’t enough evidence to support any of the theories at present. Science will happily and honestly admit to that.
You have conured yours.
Why don't you look it up in the dictionary I linked to. It references you right after tattletale.
I’m not the one claiming that science has all the answers or can even find them.
The whole point that you ignored was that the criticism of creationists for believing in a supernatural entity is hypocritical in light of the fact that the same scientists who criticize that have NOTHING better to offer.
This one is too priceless to not share....
The urbandictionary?!?!?!?!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
And just where did you get that science degree?
K-Mart?
“There isn’t enough evidence to support any of the theories at present. Science will happily and honestly admit to that.”
In light of most of the evolutionists claims on this site, that statement is without merit. “Science” rarely admits to being wrong about anything. What world do you live in where science, schools, documentaries, the government and scientists do not claim that evolution theory is 100% verifiable? I certainly have never seen that world.
The textbooks are written around it and and legislation is drafted on the premise.
If you live there, then I respect you more than you know. But judging from your use of the word “conured?” I don’t believe you do.
“How ludicrous to claim that just because they haven’t found something yet, it means that it didn’t exist.”
We know where the city of Heshbon is. As you dig down thrugh the settlement layers you’ll arrive at the Bronze Age. What you’ll find there is virgin dirt on top of bed rock. Cities leave traces. There are none.
“Archaeology can show no such thing. It can show if something DID exist by finding the remains, but can’t show that something didn’t exist because it didn’t find the remains.”
Don’t be ridiculous.
“Honestly, if this is what passes for logic and reasoning by evolutionists, it’s no wonder they think that the ToE is watertight.”
And you know that the archeologists where evolutionists how exactly?
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.