>
>
> 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.
>
>
I'm not a nephilim expert. I hope maybe jason or someone who knows the topic
better will answer this.
Uncle Davey
|
| 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 |
|