Feigning missing the trick I described, eh.Not a trick.
Meta-trickery.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Feigning missing the trick I described, eh.Not a trick.
And here is some meta meta trickery. There was no trickery. You can put as many metas as you like on it. Nothing will change.Feigning missing the trick I described, eh.
Meta-trickery.
When you have The Truth,And here is some meta meta trickery. There was no trickery. You can put as many metas as you like on it. Nothing will change.
I have a small truth maybe. No upper case "T". As I said reality can be demonstrated. If on e cannot show that something exists then it is likely not to be real. But if one can regularly demonstrate something one should know that it is real.When you have The Truth,
indeed nothing will change.
I appreciate you considering the post in the same way as a similar article in a sports section.That's fair, though in a case like this I'm deeply skeptical of the motive for some of the reasons I mentioned earlier (that is, first impressions count and headlines play a disproportionate role in framing a story). Impressions especially count for groups that are routinely subject to social stigma, shaming, or marginalization.
The comparison here to talking about sports players is not a fair one with respect to understanding why I have the concerns I have here. Sports players are not groups that share widespread stigma, shaming, or marginalization. Creationists on the other hand, are routinely mocked, shamed, and maligned (more importantly, this happens here). That's a significant contextual difference that changes the optics for me.
Personally, I don't really have a horse in this race, except I've seen this sort of thing done against my own religious demographics so it sets off red flags (also, raised by a media specialist). I get that humans take pleasure in watching people they hate burn in fire. Though it's rather unsightly, it is what it is. Sorry if I'm being a curmudgeon about this as in spite of not having a horse in this race I'm really sick to death of creationists being whipping targets.
... Simply put, they're all just plain wrong. ...
You limeys...always making names & titles so complex.
No link?Webster's dictionary. Simple words for simple people.
It’s Charles Saxe-Coburg Goethe
At a meeting of the Privy Council on 17 July 1917, George V declared that 'all descendants in the male line of Queen Victoria, who are subjects of these realms, other than female descendants who marry or who have married, shall bear the name of Windsor'.
No link?
Only briefly. As I said, the universe and earth are not less than 10,000 years old, there wasn't a global flood ~4,000 years ago where all life was wiped out except what rode aboard a wooden boat, humans were not created separate from all other organisms, life on earth was not created by separate "kinds", "intelligent design" is not a scientific hypothesis, and a litany of other things that can be found HERE.Can you explain what you mean by that and if relevant if you have any evidence for that?
Only briefly. As I said, the universe and earth are not less than 10,000 years old, there wasn't a global flood ~4,000 years ago where all life was wiped out except what rode aboard a wooden boat, humans were not created separate from all other organisms, life on earth was not created by separate "kinds", "intelligent design" is not a scientific hypothesis, and a litany of other things that can be found HERE.
You don't know what it means to be "wrong" about something? I'm sorry to hear that, and not interested in explaining such a basic concept to you.No, that they are wrong. What does that mean?
You don't know what it means to be "wrong" about something? I'm sorry to hear that, and not interested in explaining such a basic concept to you.
We're talking science, so they are scientifically wrong.So you don't backup your claim. Well, I know of 2 versions of wrong. Morally and cognitively wrong. Which are you using?
We're talking science, so they are scientifically wrong.
That's all I'm going to say about that in this thread. If you want a debate about what it means to be "wrong" in science, please start another thread and let this one stay on topic.
Didn't he send Richard Dawkins a copy of The Atlas of Creation and it turns out one insect illustration was actually a fisherman's fly, you could even make out the hook.
It was featured in the Potholer54 video that I linked. Along with his bevy of beauties.Yep. That's the one.
It's also featured in Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show on Earth".
Cracked me up
Didn't see King Charles Tampongate mentioned.Happy Birthday, Webster's 1828!
Webster simplified a lot of spelling, among other things. The second sentence of mine was a joke. Well, sort of.