Religious Debate Room Part Duex

[cziffra]

You never answered my question about the lottery numbers, Twinkle Fingers.  

but in case you don't care, i have another for you.  what is the difference between knowledge and belief?

to answer that, i'll ask another- is it possible to both a) believe that the universe was created in a certain way, say by god, AND b) accept that your belief may or may not be true?  that is to say, can you believe something WHILST acknowledging alternatives as possible?

the answer must be yes, for any detective will tell you that a certain combination of evidence at a crimescene may provide several equally plausible explanations.  that is to say, there is more than one possibility that fits the evidence provided, and the detective would be stupid if he dismissed one of them as being impossible- he could only do that if there was evidence to suggest otherwise.
he would not be stupid, however, if he had a hunch, or a belief, in just one.  he knows they all could have happened, but he truly believes, for whatever reason, that only one of them did.

he believes in one, but accepts that others may have been true.

however, suppose he was there, and he KNEW which one was true.  he would then be unable to accept the others as being possible- that would go against what he knows.

so the difference between knowledge and belief is doubt.

perhaps that was obvious, but i was explaining it only to provide an insight into atheistic thinking- we don't like to doubt things when there are other things we know.  

[TwinkleFingers]

the answer must be yes, for any detective will tell you that a certain combination of evidence at a crimescene may provide several equally plausible explanations.

unfortunatly, the theory of evolution does not have enough evidence to make me even consider it.

to answer that, i'll ask another- is it possible to both a) believe that the universe was created in a certain way, say by god, AND b) accept that your belief may or may not be true?  that is to say, can you believe something WHILST acknowledging alternatives as possible?

well that would mean I wouldnt have much faith then.  But Im not saying I wouldnt even look at other possibilities just for fun.  Im not that narrowminded.

we don't like to doubt things when there are other things we know.

thankyou for trying to explain the way you think.  Unlike eddie always verbally bashing people.  Are you saying you know how this whole existence started?  Even Pre-bang? I doubt that  Doubt is a common thing of human beings anyway.

You never answered my question about the lottery numbers, Twinkle Fingers.  

no Im not going to tell you what Im picking for next weeks lotto

[Wired]

I was wondering why your viewpoint should change.

My personal viewpoint hasn't, it's just that having someone that did fight talking to you almost every day (he was my roommate at college) gives you another vantage point.

You need a relative actually fighting to be able to do that? That's pretty pathetic.

It's hard to know all sides of an argument without hearing the arguments first. Believe it or not, media doesn't cover every side to each argument -- it's often quite biased. Prior to the war, it was pretty much anti-war. Once the war started, it became pro-war with less coverage on people against the war. That's why when reading anything, or watching anything, it must be taken with a grain of salt, or even a pinch of salt.

When will you realise that unless Vietnam sign that treaty, you have absolutely no right in being there? Does bullying become acceptable when enough people do it?

Firstly, it's annoyed me for a bit... realize (notice the z)

Secondly, if Taiwan suddenly posed immediate threat to Vatican City, you wouldn't expect the UN to intervene?

Also, let's step back a few years in history. In 1942, Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam free from French rule. However, Ho Chi Minh's rein wasn't very strong in the south, and in 1945 (at the Postdam conference in July), Britain was placed in control of South Vietnam.

On September 6 of that same year, British troops did go in to Vietnam, and became a full strength fighting force (20,000 troops) in the following weeks. General Douglas Gracey was in charge and here's a direct quote: "I was welcomed on arrival by the Vietminh. I promptly kicked them out." Instead of continuing to try to do it peacefully, he set about driving nationalists off the streets, banning meetings and restoring Japanese curfew regulations. On September 23 (with his connivance and under his protection), the French troops staged a coup. They seized public buildings, including the town hall, and made widespread arrests.

Making a long story short, all of this put France back into power of Vietnam, which thereby precipitated the national liberation war that was to come.

So, if you consider America out of line for holding up a decision rendered by a group of countries, so was Britain.

I'm not entirely sure why they did form a treaty that would require entry into a non-treaty signing country to uphold it.

It's called World War II. It made a lot of things change.

They were right!

A large population is often a fickle population. That's why the legislation and party members choose who they would like to represent us.

[Wired]

what is the difference between knowledge and belief?

Knowledge is "The state or fact of knowing," and belief is "Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something."

is it possible to both a) believe that the universe was created in a certain way, say by god, AND b) accept that your belief may or may not be true?  that is to say, can you believe something WHILST acknowledging alternatives as possible?

No. While you can still consider others, if you think they are possible, you no longer have a single belief in the way something happened. Instead you then have two beliefs. Believing in two things that contradict each other makes you agnostic.

However, this isn't to say that it limits people's judgment skills. Instead, it objectifies them -- they believe something, and enough evidence must be presented to make them stop believing it.

[TwinkleFingers]

they believe something, and enough evidence must be presented to make them stop believing it.

which will never happen because we have the ultimate evidence, God and His creation.

[Wired]

which will never happen because we have the ultimate evidence, God and His creation.

Very true -- the reason I didn't mention it was that I keeping it very general

[Noah]

which will never happen because we have the ultimate evidence, God and His creation.

No evidence of the existence of god has been presented to me.

Firstly, it's annoyed me for a bit... realize (notice the z)

That is an americanism. The original spelling is "realise" (notice the s)

[Wired]

No evidence of the existence of god has been presented to me.

The Bible. That's our evidence, so it has been presented to you, and our evidence hasn't been proven false either.

That is an americanism. The original spelling is "realise" (notice the s)

You mean Americanizm (just kidding of course ). Sorry about that -- that possibility didn't even jump in my mind.

[Noah]

You mean Americanizm (just kidding of course ). Sorry about that -- that possibility didn't even jump in my mind.

Typical. You think USA are right about everything, and as you say it yourself, the fact that you might be wrong or that there is an alternative doesn't even jump to your mind. From spelling considerations to foreign politics...  

[Wired]

Typical. You think USA are right about everything, and as you say it yourself, the fact that you might be wrong or that there is an alternative doesn't even jump to your mind. From spelling considerations to foreign politics...  

Nah, I talk almost every day with a fellow programmer that I've known online for over 5 years now, and he's from London. I get my fair share of international viewpoints, as well as points as to why we've "bastardized the language."

[TwinkleFingers]

Well, wired mentioned the bible as evidence. No one will comment on that? You just keep the subjects rounding about. And in all fairness, I think wired has examined other areas and he has shown the faults of them..

[Noah]

Well, wired mentioned the bible as evidence. No one will comment on that? You just keep the subjects rounding about. And in all fairness, I think wired has examined other areas and he has shown the faults of them..

And I think we have shown the faults in the Bible.

[Wired]

And I think we have shown the faults in the Bible.

And again, I ask, which faults?

[Noah]

Go and read pages 1-8

[eddie92099]

The Bible. That's our evidence, so it has been presented to you, and our evidence hasn't been proven false either.

Well in that case I present to you "Spot the dog" as my evidence for dogs being able to talk. Try and disprove that one!
Ed

[TwinkleFingers]

Well in that case I present to you "Spot the dog" as my evidence for dogs being able to talk. Try and disprove that one!
Ed

youve got us on that one ed

And I think we have shown the faults in the Bible.

the only thing shown is that the new translations of today are slightly misinterperated.  That is not a fault of the bible, merely man.
If you can read hebrew, latin, greek, then let us know the faults.

[Wired]

Well in that case I present to you "Spot the dog" as my evidence for dogs being able to talk. Try and disprove that one!
Ed

The only difference is that Spot isn't available to make appearances, while a modern translation of the Bible can be bought at almost any bookstore, lots of other stores, as well as for free in most hotels.

[TwinkleFingers]

wired, that question wasnt even worth answering.  I think eddie is running out of intelligent things to say.  Ed is always comparing God to the physical dimension we live in (that God created by the way) I dont see how a dog that can talk has any relevence to this anyhow.  We all have access to the Bible.  Not to old spotty.  Nor do I want to see a talking dog(that would freak me out)  

[eddie92099]

The only difference is that Spot isn't available to make appearances, while a modern translation of the Bible can be bought at almost any bookstore, lots of other stores, as well as for free in most hotels.

And that makes the bible more valid how exactly?! If you would like to purchase Spot the Dog - here is the link:
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0399240462/qid=1069070906/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-1292623-0185705?v=glance&s=books
Ed

P.s. TwinkleFingers - be warned - the reading level is, I quote, "Baby-Preschool".

[TwinkleFingers]

I hope you had a good read eddie let me know if you need help anaylizing that one.
                   

[Wired]

And that makes the bible more valid how exactly?! If you would like to purchase Spot the Dog - here is the link

And the other difference is that Spot the Dog is regarded as Children's Fiction while the Bible is considered to be a historically accurate book, which would classify it as non-fiction (Except usually it is in the religious section instead).

[cziffra]

No. While you can still consider others, if you think they are possible, you no longer have a single belief in the way something happened.

wired, did you actually read my post about belief and knowledge?  

i was saying that if there are a set of equally possible explanations, believing one of them to be true is simply the act of YOU making the choice to value that option as most preferable TO YOU.  meanwhile, this act does not change the state of the other options, it only changes how YOU must react to them.  that is to say, they are only illogical BECAUSE of the choice you made, not because of any qualities inherent within them on their own.  

if you considered others, you would still have your singular belief, you would simply recognise that it is just that, a belief.  a choice and a preference unique to you, and which can't stand on it's own as individual knowledge if you weren't there.  

Instead you then have two beliefs. Believing in two things that contradict each other makes you agnostic.

you don't believe in the others if you accept them as possible.  believing in alternatives is simply an acceptance of your own fallability.  and if you can't accept your own fallability, i think you forgot what separates you from god.

P.S i have no idea how the universe started.  i don't claim to know.  how can a human being know something that immense?  similarly i do not know if god exists.  he may, he may not.  he may be in the form you say, he may not.  he may be a she or an it.  he may be dead.  i do not know, and i never will.  the only thing i know is that i do not know.  

[Wired]

wired, did you actually read my post about belief and knowledge?

Yes. I also gave the definition of belief. If you think something is possible, you believe that it could have happened. It then falsifies your other belief simply because when you believe in two different and opposite things, by definition, you are agnostic.

you don't believe in the others if you accept them as possible. believing in alternatives is simply an acceptance of your own fallability.  and if you can't accept your own fallability, i think you forgot what separates you from god.

To accept your own fallibility is different than considering other things as being possible. If everyone considered everything possible, then where would we be today? Pi is 3.0, as well as 3.14. I can levitate because it could be possible. Pigs are flying somewhere.

Again, I state that belief is "mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something."

If you believe that something is valid and true, and then go and say, "But this other thing is possible too," then you are no longer convicted to that one belief.

[eddie92099]

And the other difference is that Spot the Dog is regarded as Children's Fiction while the Bible is considered to be a historically accurate book, which would classify it as non-fiction (Except usually it is in the religious section instead).

I don't regard the bible as anything more than children's fiction,
Ed

[BoliverAllmon]

as do we about you ed.

boliver

[Wired]

I don't regard the bible as anything more than children's fiction,

Leading historians find the Bible to be historically accurate. https://www.christianadvice.net/the_bible_as_history.htm

Can you provide any historical facts in the Bible that aren't true by other historical aspects? I'm not asking whether or not scientifically you believe in creation, but any other points historically jump out, feel free to name them.

[eddie92099]

as do we about you ed.

So...I'm children's fiction. Great argument by the way!

Leading historians find the Bible to be historically accurate.    

They also find Spot the Dog to be historically accurate.

Can you provide any historical facts in the Bible that aren't true by other historical aspects?

Whatever error I point out you will blame on incorrect translations,
Ed

[Noah]

Leading historians find the Bible to be historically accurate.

Leading historians believe that they were dinosaurs on this planet tens of millions of years ago, so how could they judge historically accurate the fact that the earth was supposedly created around 10,000 years ago ?

[cziffra]

read this verycarefully wired:

if there are a set of equally possible explanations, say option A B C and D, believing option A to be true is simply the act of YOU making the choice to value that option as most preferable TO YOU.  as you would say, you have your own mental conviction regarding option A.

meanwhile, this act of choosing to prefer A instead of B C or D DOES NOT CHANGE THE STATE OF B C AND D, it only changes how YOU must react to them.

so, whilst you are obligated to admit that you do not have a mental conviction for those alternatives, YOU NEVERTHELESS MUST KNOW THAT THIS IS ONLY BECAUSE YOU HAVE CHOSEN A.  that is to say, you must dismiss B C and D BECAUSE the choice you made contradicts with them, not because of any qualities inherent within B C and D ON THEIR OWN.

this means that if YOU YOURSELF PERSONALLY ON YOUR OWN choose to believe option A, then YOU YOURSELF PERSONALLY ON YOUR OWN must disregard options B C and D- but that DOES NOT stop them from being possible in reality- they are only impossible in your own head, they are impossible compared to YOUR OWN conviction.  it is simply a factual statement to say, "I may be wrong in reality, but i do not like to think so."

if you considered others, you would still have your singular belief, you would simply recognise that it is just that, a belief.  a choice and a preference unique to you, and which can't stand on it's own as individual knowledge if you weren't there.  

[Wired]

if there are a set of equally possible explanations, say option A B C and D, believing option A to be true is simply the act of YOU making the choice to value that option as most preferable TO YOU.  as you would say, you have your own mental conviction regarding option A.

No, if you think that all of the options are possible, then you can't believe very strongly about any of the options. While you may consider one to be more possible, conviction by definition is "a fixed or strong belief."

Well, I take my point back. While I personally believe that belief means that you must consider only one thing possible, some people may believe that belief means something slightly different. From what I've looked up in the Dictionary, it doesn't seem that way, but from practical use in the English language, it does start to feel that way.

The reason I was arguing so firmly was that I believe that if someone believes the Bible is true, he or she shouldn't be saying, "The Bible is true, but other things are possible."

But, as many words also have, belief is used slightly different by different people.

[Wired]

Whatever error I point out you will blame on incorrect translations

So find an error that I can't point out an explanation for. I didn't just say, "Oh, that's just improper translation. I know it."

I provided links to sites that explained them, or personally explained them. If you have a question about something you find to be incorrect, ask. The site with lots and lots of supposed contradictions is a bit much, so I posted something that I am willing to bet you didn't even read past the headline on.

(I did search for the first few items, they were explained. It's not like I just found something totally unrelated)

[Wired]

Leading historians believe that they were dinosaurs on this planet tens of millions of years ago, so how could they judge historically accurate the fact that the earth was supposedly created around 10,000 years ago ?

Since when were historians studying dinosaurs? Historians are those who study written accounts of history and piece things together based on their findings. They aren't paleontologists.

[TwinkleFingers]

So...I'm children's fiction. Great argument by the way!

your the one bringing childrens fiction in this debate.  I have no idea why either.

We are still waiting for a question Ed in regards to the bible.  If all you can talk about is inconsistencies with the wording, then all we can say is improper translation.  I think wired means solid evidence that an event in the bible didnt take place that you can prove.

I don't regard the bible as anything more than children's fiction,
Ed

Why?

[Noah]

Since when were historians studying dinosaurs? Historians are those who study written accounts of history and piece things together based on their findings. They aren't paleontologists.

Historians study the History of our planet, ans while they don't study dinosaurs 'in detail' (that's the paleontologists' job), thet still place the existence of dinosaurs some millions of years ago on their timeline.

[Wired]

Historians study the History of our planet, ans while they don't study dinosaurs 'in detail' (that's the paleontologists' job), thet still place the existence of dinosaurs some millions of years ago on their timeline.

Where do you find this information? I've never heard of a timeline done by a historian that details things about dinosaurs. While I've heard of Natural History (which isn't really history, but science), I haven't ever heard of a plain ol' historian studying anything that doesn't involve written accounts of that period.

[TwinkleFingers]

still waiting Ed, or anyone else.

[cziffra]

No, if you think that all of the options are possible, then you can't believe very strongly about any of the options. While you may consider one to be more possible, conviction by definition is "a fixed or strong belief."

i see where ed gets his condescending nature from.  that was really quite a stunning feat of ignorance wired.  

again, please read my post. and try to understand it.  

a fixed or strong belief does not impede the ability to recognise the possibility you are wrong.  

The reason I was arguing so firmly was that I believe that if someone believes the Bible is true, he or she shouldn't be saying, "The Bible is true, but other things are possible."

so you're saying that they should have a completely closed mind, utterly ignorant of other possibilites and completely unable to consider the possibility that they are wrong?

But, as many words also have, belief is used slightly different by different people.

i'm not talking about the usage of a word, i'm talking about the concept of being able to accept your own fallability.

P.S i may be wrong.  but if you're going to tell me that, at least talk about what i said, not about a dictionary.  

[Wired]

i see where ed gets his condescending nature from.  that was really quite a stunning feat of ignorance wired.

Since when are Ed and I related or even how is it possible for Ed to get his condescending nature from me? I still am not being ignorant.  

again, please read my post. and try to understand it.

I do understand what you're trying to say.

a fixed or strong belief does not impede the ability to recognize the possibility you are wrong.

Right.

so you're saying that they should have a completely closed mind, utterly ignorant of other possibilites and completely unable to consider the possibility that they are wrong?

No, I'm saying that if there are multiple possibilities (that are indeed possible, and there's enough evidence to say so), even acknowledging that you know both are possible makes you fall into the agnostic category.

i'm not talking about the usage of a word, i'm talking about the concept of being able to accept your own fallability.

But that's all we're arguing over -- the usage of the word belief. Or at least, that's all I'm arguing over.

P.S i may be wrong.  but if you're going to tell me that, at least talk about what i said, not about a dictionary.

Knowing that there are theories out there is one thing. Acknowledging them is another thing. But to go as far as to say that there is enough evidence for you to consider that theory possible makes you have a belief in it. If you have two contradicting theories that have evidence in them, and you personally feel that both have met their burden of proof to make you think they are possible, then you have a situation where you are not able to believe in one thing. Instead, the simple act of knowing that they both are possible makes you have a belief in both.

I'm not saying that it isn't possible to consider other evidence of other theories. I'm just saying that the moment you decide that another theory is indeed possible, then you no longer have a single belief and are agnostic, by definition.

[Noah]

still waiting Ed, or anyone else.

We consider the Bible as fiction, because that's what it is. Of course it's nowhere as good as Spot the Dog.
And forgive me if I have a life apart from this forum and to reply to your primary school - level posts within the femtosecond.

[Wired]

We consider the Bible as fiction, because that's what it is. Of course it's nowhere as good as Spot the Dog.

I beg to differ on both points. It isn't fiction. If it was so clearly cut that it was fiction, we wouldn't be having this argument. There is either two reasons you have this belief: 1. You think that the Bible is fiction because that's what others have told you, or 2. You have found something in it that you think can't be true because of what your current knowledge of the world is.

If there aren't any arguments presented other than, "That's just the way I feel about it," then you're under category 1. For a debate to work, you have to be under category 2.

And forgive me if I have a life apart from this forum and to reply to your primary school - level posts within the femtosecond.

Femtosecond: one quadrillionth of a second
Actual time: 11 hours, 44 minutes, and some seconds.

That type of exaggeration is... almost childish.

[Noah]

There is either two reasons you have this belief: 1. You think that the Bible is fiction because that's what others have told you, or 2. You have found something in it that you think can't be true because of what your current knowledge of the world is.

So I'm a 2.

For a debate to work, you have to be under category 2.

Good then.

Femtosecond: one quadrillionth of a second
Actual time: 11 hours, 44 minutes, and some seconds.

That type of exaggeration is... almost childish.

What, as childish as believing that people can live inside a whale/fish. ? Or that a boat can be built on which you can put millions of animals and feed them during 40 days ?
Sorry I forgot you lot don't understand sarcasm, I'll make it really obvious for you next time...
You'll be happy to see that my reply-time has much improved.

[eddie92099]

The site with lots and lots of supposed contradictions is a bit much        

Then why are you asking me for MORE contradictions to state?

your the one bringing childrens fiction in this debate.  I have no idea why either.  

That is because you cannot think laterally. This is not my problem.

Why?

Because it has a story about a man who lives in a fish.

Since when are Ed and I related or even how is it possible for Ed to get his condescending nature from me? I still am not being ignorant.  

Your ignorant comments encourage my condescension.

If you have two contradicting theories that have evidence in them, and you personally feel that both have met their burden of proof to make you think they are possible, then you have a situation where you are not able to believe in one thing. Instead, the simple act of knowing that they both are possible makes you have a belief in both  

Hypothetical situation:
You are a member of a jury. A man is on trial for murder. After all the evidence it is still possible that he may be either innocent or guilty. This does not mean you believe he is both innocent and guilty!

There is either two reasons you have this belief: 1. You think that the Bible is fiction because that's what others have told you, or 2. You have found something in it that you think can't be true because of what your current knowledge of the world is.

Clearly we are under category 2.

That type of exaggeration is... almost childish.  

Not familiar with satire?
Ed

[Wired]

What, as childish as believing that people can live inside a whale/fish. ?

I thought we had already covered this.

https://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/jonah.html
https://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/ask03/0136.html
https://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/ask03/0178.html

If you would like more theories, just click here: https://www.google.com/search?q=jonah+whale+possible&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Or that a boat can be built on which you can put millions of animals and feed them during 40 days ?

And we covered this also...

https://www.inthelight.org/evo_questions/noahsarkpossible.htm
https://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html
https://www.flood-myth.com/animals.htm

Sorry I forgot you lot don't understand sarcasm, I'll make it really obvious for you next time...

Sarcasm? Since when was that reply, "A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound?" The next sarcastic remark better actually be sarcastic, rather than just a silly exaggeration.

You'll be happy to see that my reply-time has much improved.

YAY!

[Wired]

Then why are you asking me for MORE contradictions to state?

I say it is a bit much because you didn't specifically ask about a single thing. Even if I were to go through and reply to every single one, you wouldn't read it. That's why I ask for you to focus on one thing -- one at a time.

Your ignorant comments encourage my condescension.

Which comments are ignorant? Just because someone doesn't believe the same way you do doesn't mean they are ignorant. If that were true, everyone was ignorant back when people thought the Earth was round. While they did indeed think that way, I think you can see why them thinking that was was incorrect -- or at least I hope you can see why that's incorrect.

Hypothetical situation:
You are a member of a jury. A man is on trial for murder. After all the evidence it is still possible that he may be either innocent or guilty. This does not mean you believe he is both innocent and guilty!

Right. That's called reasonable doubt. And, at that point in time, you are agnostic with respect to the guilt/innocence of that person.

Not familiar with satire?

No, I am. It's a literary term that is defined as, "witty language used to convey insults or scorn." I didn't see any wit.

[eddie92099]

I say it is a bit much because you didn't specifically ask about a single thing. Even if I were to go through and reply to every single one, you wouldn't read it. That's why I ask for you to focus on one thing -- one at a time.

Okay then - focus on the first one. Then, when you are done, move on to the next one. And so the process should continue until I am satisfied.

Which comments are ignorant? Just because someone doesn't believe the same way you do doesn't mean they are ignorant. If that were true, everyone was ignorant back when people thought the Earth was round.

Quite. Ignorant meaning lacking knowledge.

That's called reasonable doubt. And, at that point in time, you are agnostic with respect to the guilt/innocence of that person.

This completely contradicts what you said before ("Instead, the simple act of knowing that they both are possible makes you have a belief in both").

It's a literary term that is defined as, "witty language used to convey insults or scorn." I didn't see any wit.

"Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity."
Quite apt I feel,
Ed

[Wired]

Okay then - focus on the first one. Then, when you are done, move on to the next one. And so the process should continue until I am satisfied.

Sadly, I'm not committed enough because I posted a reply which explains most of them. If you didn't read them there, why would you read them here?

Quite. Ignorant meaning lacking knowledge.

Well, I find your arguments lacking knowledge as much as I find mine lacking knowledge.

This completely contradicts what you said before ("Instead, the simple act of knowing that they both are possible makes you have a belief in both").

What? How does that contradict that statement? When you believe in two opposites (guilt and innocence), you are agnostic. When people can't decide whether they think a person is more innocent or guilty, it's called reasonable doubt. I can't seem to find any contradictions there...

"Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity."
Quite apt I feel,

I see no use of irony, sarcasm, or wit. Or, perhaps that's because I'm not on a primary-school humor level?

[TwinkleFingers]

so you're saying that they should have a completely closed mind, utterly ignorant of other possibilites and completely unable to consider the possibility that they are wrong?

wired has an open mind. He must because he knows how flawed the evolutionary theory is.

i'm not talking about the usage of a word, i'm talking about the concept of being able to accept your own fallability.

will you?

And forgive me if I have a life apart from this forum and to reply to your primary school - level posts within the femtosecond.

there goes the maturity again:)

[If there aren't any arguments presented other than, "That's just the way I feel about it," then you're under category 1. For a debate to work, you have to be under category 2.

/quote]nicely stated wired

Femtosecond: one quadrillionth of a second
Actual time: 11 hours, 44 minutes, and some seconds.

That type of exaggeration is... almost childish.

I knew that before I knew what a femtosecond even was.

What, as childish as believing that people can live inside a whale/fish. ? Or that a boat can be built on which you can put millions of animals and feed them during 40 days ?

how about as silly as us even existing?

That is because you cannot think laterally. This is not my problem.

how is the book report coming along on spot the dog

Because it has a story about a man who lives in a fish.

?im glad you said fish because that is what the bible says, not whale. And it has been proven already that man can live inside a fish. Late 1800's I believe. Try Again ED!!!

I see no use of irony, sarcasm, or wit. Or, perhaps that's because I'm not on a primary-school humor level?

ouch wired

[Noah]

there goes the maturity again

So me using the word femtosecond is a lack of maturity ? I'm sorry if you don't understand words that have more than 3 syllables.

im glad you said fish because that is what the bible says, not whale. And it has been proven already that man can live inside a fish. Late 1800's I believe. Try Again ED!!!

Ooh, please, give me some references of the 'proof'.

[Wired]

Ooh, please, give me some references of the 'proof'.

As I posted to your previous reply:

https://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/jonah.html
https://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/ask03/0136.html
https://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/ask03/0178.html

[TwinkleFingers]

So me using the word femtosecond is a lack of maturity ? I'm sorry if you don't understand words that have more than 3 syllables.

I could care less about the meaning or your usage of the word femtosecond.  I was refferring to your statement when you said

And forgive me if I have a life apart from this forum and to reply to your primary school - level posts  

I'm sorry if you don't understand words that have more than 3 syllables.

and there is more maturity out the window. Even if I didnt understand the word, which I'll admit I didn't,I could always look it up.

Ooh, please, give me some references of the 'proof'.

so now not only do you disbelieve the bible, now you disbelieve relatively recent historical evidence. Very well.  I doubt you believe that you even exist.
Wired, that 3rd link talks about the story Ive heard.  The one in the late 1800's.  I guess there is no proof in that one.  They said the capt. of the ship didnt write anything down in the ship log about it.  but the 2nd link kind of makes sence. For jonah to sit in the mouth of the whale while skimming the surface of the ocean.  You have to believe that miracles can happen.  I mean even "some"people who saw the actual miracles doubted it was Jesus.  I cant imagine that. But it did happen.

So me using the word femtosecond is a lack of maturity ? I'm sorry if you don't understand words that have more than 3 syllables.

besides do you know who your even talking to?