Uncle Davey wrote:
>>>
>>>If you want to believe it was a thousand years ago, then what about the
>
> fact
>
>>>that we have detailed history going back longer than that?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Omphalos.
>>
>>
>>You do know that that is, right Davey?
>
>
> Sure, but that is omphalos strong, and I am proposing omphalos lite.
Who cares what you are proposing, Davey. You're not god's spokesman.
>
> The difference being, that there are no false memories in Omphalos Lite. It
> is not a "total recall get your ass to mars" scenario like Omphalos Strong,
> or last Truesdayism.
Then your version of Omphalos is wrong. <shrug> Go ahead and
demonstrate otherwise.
See, Davey, MY version of omphalos is more consistent than yours. Under
YOUR version, God creates a false history in his creation (for whatever
reason -- maybe he's just a prick or a trickster, but no matter), but
not a false history in his book. In MY version of omphalos, God is not
so inconsistent -- he is creating a false history in his creation AND
imn his book. None of the "history" in his creation really happened --
it's just put there to fool us. Consistently, none of the history in
his BOOK really happened either --- it's just put there to fool us. So
unlike YOUR "lite" version of Omphalos, in which God is honest some of
the time and dishonest some of the time, my version of "omphalos" is
internally consistent -- God is dishonest ALL of the time.
Why? Who knows --- "many and mysterious are the ways of the Lord". I
do not presume to know the motives of God. I leave that to
self-righteous arrogant pricks who think they're holier than everyone
else. Ya know -- people like you, Davey.
>
>
>>
>>>A hundred thousand years ago is ten times longer than we actually need.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Says you. <shrug>
>>
>
> It's my gut reaction.
My gut reaction is that your guts are full of shit. <shrug>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>I don't believe that things that speciate can cross these kinds, and
>>>>>>>that becomes then the definition of the Kind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It doesn't matter what you believe.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't know why you ask me then, if it doesn't matter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I believe that speciations CAN cross these kinds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why is my belief wrong and your belief is right (other than your
>
> say-so).
>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Show me a speciation crossing a kind
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Humans speciating from apes.
>>
>>
>
>
> You gonna show me that? OK, I'll buy an airline ticket for that. What
> airport do I fly to for the demonstation? Which apes will you be using?
> Bonoboes?
>
Yes, if you like. Please go ahead and set the whole thing up. We'll
invite "Constance" to watch, since she seems to be your "pervert" avatar.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>, and your belief will be right, and
>>
>>>I'll have to do a re-think.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Show me a barrier that stops a species from crossing to another "kind"
>>(first, though, you'd have to define a "kind", which you don't want to
>>do). Then I will be the one re-thinking.
>>
>>I'm not holding my breath waiting.
>
>
> The fact that the record is so patchy for transitionals that people had to
> think up punk eek, that's an illustration of that barrier.
>
If there is even ONE transitional, Davey, then you have some 'splainin'
to do.
Oh, and I notice you didn't answer my question --- what is the barrier
that prevents species from crossing into another "kind".
My breath is still not being held, Davey.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>Anyone can say that they believe
>>>>>>that the universe began last Thursday, and that would be impossible to
>>>>>>falsify.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>There we are then. You admit you can't disprove my faith.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And you can't disprove Sun Myung Moon's faith that he is the Son of God
>>>>and the Younger Brother of Jesus. <shrug>
>>>>
>>>>So what.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>So nothing. If he's right, then we're both done for. All I can do is
>
> believe
>
>>>he isn't.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>And we should care about your belief because . . . . ?
>>
>>Why is your belief any better than his belief?
>>
>>
>
>
> If you like the sound of his better, go for it.
Fine. <shrug>
>
>
>>>I can't prove it.
>>>
>>
>>
>>No shit.
>>
>>So why waste time arguing about it? Why not spend time arguing more
>>substantive matters, such as whether angels had an omphalos.
>>
>
>
> Angels don't have omphaloi
Pulled up their skirts and looked, have you?
, each is separately created and is not wrought
> out of sexual union, as men are.
>
Uh, then why were they fucking all those nephilim, Davey.
Make up your goddamn mind. Did angels (or fallen ones) fuck humans, or
didn't they. Which is it. Do they have cocks and cunts, or don't they.
If they do, then why don't they have omphali. If they don't, how did
they fuck human women.
Do tell, Davey. Give us the benefit of your divine knowledge.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
|