oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
No it's not. It is, however, constant and cumulative.
...................
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!
No it's not. It is, however, constant and cumulative.
Rubbish. What do you have to back that up?
Yeah, let's get the 'right perspective':
Scientists Seek to Update Evolution | Quanta Magazine
Scientists themselves can't even agree on the mechanisms behind macro evolution. So how should we toe the line? It might be the wrong line!
This article is already 2 years old. How's this New Synthesis coming?
That's a very nice long p[ost where you failed to address...
I never said, "everything written by the Mail was distortion and lies".
I didn't pick the Guardian at all. I didn't pick any paper.
Any comments I made about JW or anyone else's beliefs regarding blood transfusions were fact-based.
If you disagree with any of the above, show where it's wrong.
There are limits to what technology can do. The speed of light may limit practical interstellar travel. to being all but nonexistent.
I feel absolutely sure that the honorable member will think of the Ancient OldBadger Preservation Trust.If you can successfully explain the inverse square law to him I'll donate $20 to the charity of your choice
The first two don't matter, Savage. All your life was a university......Not a priest am I. And, God help me! I didn't even finish college. Oh! AND I'm a woman. Three strikes and I am out? No thinking for me!
Ah..... so you didn't have anything to back all that up after all.Do you EVER have anything to 'back up' your accusations and assertions?
You sure like to make demands of others yet never seem to even be able to explain, much less support, your claims.
Do you think nobody notices?
I have told you before that you keep assuming what people have or have not done. Your argument was this.
Hypovolemic shock can only be treated with an increase in blood volume. Non-blood fluids cannot be used to replace large amounts of lost blood for what I hope are obvious reasons (saline, for example, does not carry oxygen so well). People do die from refusing blood transfusions.
I provided you with links showing 1) Hypovolemic shock can be treated without an increase in blood volume, and 2) RBCs does not improve oxygen carrying capabilities.
Do you disagree?
LOL. Say, what? If telling the truth is trashing a person, then that person is in real trouble. Don't you think?That is what you believe.
But has any JW run a thread to trash what you believe in?
No!
So, maybe you are saying I can really know something about what is written that THEY do not know? LOL. You are so much fun, sir.The first two don't matter, Savage. All your life was a university......
And the third, that you are a woman, is not problem at all.
har har harAh..... so you didn't have anything to back all that up after all.
Wrong again. You made a series of insults and did not like the corrections. I will answer any properly asked question.More insults from you........ again.
It's all you've got.
Quote mining is their number one weapon since it is the only way that they can make it look as if there is any scientific support for their ideas at all. Also many Christians are subconsciously taught to quote mine. When you hear of claims of "hundreds of fulfilled prophecies of Jesus" that is done by quote mining their own Bible. That should be a blasphemous thing to do, but I guess that lying for Jesus is allowed.Does anyone else find it odd that creationists are WAY too eager to use and apparently reliant upon archived dubious quotes and videos to do their "arguing" for them?
Why? Do you think that these authors wrote something else that contradicted those paragraphs?For one thing, this book was published in 1964, more than 50 years ago; a lot has happened in palaeontology since that time. Second, do you actually own a copy of this book? If you do, you must know that you have quoted three sentences, from two separate paragraphs, out of a 719-page book. Perhaps you should read some of the other pages in order to gain a better understanding of evolution and the history of life.
Does that change anything? Not one iota.Odd - the word "macroevolution" does not appear in that article.
Why beat a dead horse, dialoguing with those who won't reason? You haven't reasoned on any evidence I've presented, just spout that my explanation is wrong.Who knows? @Hockeycowboy is once again doing his usual routine where he comes into a thread, says a few things, dodges follow-ups, and eventually just leaves.
That he's so predictable in that way says a lot.
Quote mining is perhaps one of the most common reasons I've seen for people concluding that professional creationists are nothing more than hucksters and con men. It takes deliberate effort to take parts of one sentence and mash it up with parts of another to make it seem as if the author is saying the opposite of what they actually said; it takes deliberate effort to hide the full context of a quote.Quote mining is their number one weapon since it is the only way that they can make it look as if there is any scientific support for their ideas at all.