Re: Is The King James Version The Only Perfect Translation Of The Bible?

[No One]

I am amused that no one is calling me an idiot, either.

You are still an idiot, and are now reduced to playing stupid
games.

 

[Dionisio]

"Louder! Funnier!"

Then it features the Aludium PU-36 ESM?


--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.
-- Hubert Humphrey

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)

 

[Dionisio]

Now try reading this slowly: People have not been gathering data for a
billion years simply because the data they are gathering right now reveals
something about events that happened a billion years ago.

Thanks for the clarification.

Would you like to take another crack at imagining what I'm saying?

I was tempted to say, "yes." Then it occurred to me that perhaps I might not want to know
why a kumquat would be used that way... ;-)


--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

The best way to keep your children out of hot water? Put some dishes in it.

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)

 

[Dionisio]

I agree. But No One asserted otherwise.
Ah.



You have such a fertile imagination. You shouldn't let it carry you away so
often, though.

Well, I was all set for "Black holes swallowed huge chunks of it, quasars noised some of
it out, and gravitational lenses distorted things..."

Now I see that we're about to have another round of No One's famous multi-week parrot
fests. (Sorry, I don't tend to read messages that go for a whole screen sans nothing new.)


--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
-- Steve Jobs

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)

 

[No One]

Now I see that we're about to have another round of No One's famous
multi-week parrot fests. (Sorry, I don't tend to read messages that go
for a whole screen sans nothing new.)

Dionisio is still angry about having been wrong on a different topic.

 

[Scruffy McScruffovitch]

In News [email protected],, Tom at
[email protected], typed this:

It's not? We knew all about brachiosaurs before we ever saw any
fossils of them?

What have you been smoking? We have seen fossils of them, they are not
unknown.

 

[Tom]

That's nice, but you were caught lying so much that you seem to be
the sort who values the truth so much that he uses it sparingly.

It amuses me that no one claims to have caught me lying.

 

[Tom]

In News [email protected],, Tom at
[email protected], typed this:


What have you been smoking? We have seen fossils of them, they are not
unknown.

So you do not think we knew what a brachiosaur looked like before we found
fossils and concluded that they were petrified bones of previously unknown
animals. That's good.

My point is that we do not look at something that happened a billion years
ago, or even a paltry hundred million years ago. We look at the way things
are now and spin as good a story as we can about how things came to be the
way they are. We have not collected data for a billion years, as No One
asserted we have. We collect data in the present and theorize about what
could have happened all those years ago to account for it. We've made some
pretty good guesses, but we should not lose sight of the fact that they
*are* guesses. They are not absolute truths.

Science should not be confused with scientism.

 

[No One]

It amuses me that no one claims to have caught me lying.

You were in fact caught lying. Also, Learn to capitalize correctly.

 

[Tom]

You are still an idiot, and are now reduced to playing stupid
games.

I'm playing stupid games with no one.

 

[No One]

I'm playing stupid games with no one.

You're playing stupid games.

 

[Tom]

I'll note that you haven't produced the message ID, even though it
would have been right in front of your face. So, there is simply
no reason to believe you.

Nor should you. I see that it was "donald" who actually insisted that we
have. He was defending your statement that you had data that "covers
billions of years". Certainly "covers billions of years" does not mean
"collected for billions of years", does it?

However, I also see that you had lots of opportunity to correct "donald's"
misinterpretation of your words and chose not to do so, which suggests that
you don't have any argument with it. You seem more than ready to argue
about anything else, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude that you
agree with him.

However, I'm willing to take you at your word that you think "donald" is
wrong.

Guess again.

That's not a guess. That's advice. Not that you should trust advice you
find on Usenet either...

 

[Tom]

Thanks for the clarification.



I was tempted to say, "yes." Then it occurred to me that perhaps I might
not want to know why a kumquat would be used that way... ;-)

There are some things Man was never meant to know.

 

[No One]

Nor should you. I see that it was "donald" who actually insisted that we
have. He was defending your statement that you had data that "covers
billions of years". Certainly "covers billions of years" does not mean
"collected for billions of years", does it?

Oh, so you lied once again! In fact we do have data that covers billions
of years, just as I said, due to the finite speed of light and the size
of the universe.

However, I also see that you had lots of opportunity to correct "donald's"
misinterpretation of your words and chose not to do so, which suggests that
you don't have any argument with it.

I'm under no obligation to respond or read every post, particularly
when I'm checking a newsgroup that can get hundreds of posts each day.
You suggestion that I must agree with someone simply for not taking the
time to respond is just plain stupid.

You seem more than ready to argue about anything else, so it doesn't
seem unreasonable to conclude that you agree with him.

Actually, you are showing your own character flaws. Instead of
apologizing for claiming I posted something that I hadn't, you
decided to blame me for not arguing with someone else.

However, I'm willing to take you at your word that you think "donald" is
wrong.

If I've neve said anything about "donald", you should have left it at
that. Given how you misquoted me, I'd hardly accept your statement
about what "donald" said as being accurage.

That's not a guess. That's advice. Not that you should trust advice you
find on Usenet either...

Wrong - it depends on who is giving the advise, not where it is published.

 

[Bassos]

Oh, so you lied once again! In fact we do have data that covers billions
of years

Oh ffs, when will you see that tom is not talking about what the data
covers.

Tom is talking about when the data is collected.

So even if the collected data is an 1 on 1 representation of millions of
years, the collecting part will always be in the now.

Now realise that your position is not at all related to this, but you are
defending your imagination, and shut the **** up.

 

[No One]

Oh ffs, when will you see that tom is not talking about what the data
covers.

Tom is talking about when the data is collected.

..... which is a red herring, but the fact is he lied about what I and
others had said, and that is independent of what one is supposedly
"talking about". He's gotten it wrong so many times that it doesn't
seem to be a case of a random mistake.

So even if the collected data is an 1 on 1 representation of millions of
years, the collecting part will always be in the now.

Now realise that your position is not at all related to this, but you are
defending your imagination, and shut the **** up.

Follow your own advise. I'm giving Tom static over it because he has
been misrepresenting what I said. Furthermore, he doesn't get to set
the agenda for a discussion.

 

[Scruffy McScruffovitch]

In News [email protected],, Tom at
[email protected], typed this:

So you do not think we knew what a brachiosaur looked like before we
found fossils

Again, what have you been smoking? Stick with what I am posting, and you
won't get so confused.

 

[Meltdarok]

No One wrote, On 1/10/2008 4:52 PM:

.... which is a red herring, but the fact is he lied about what I and
others had said, and that is independent of what one is supposedly
"talking about". He's gotten it wrong so many times that it doesn't
seem to be a case of a random mistake.


Follow your own advise. I'm giving Tom static over it

So you just drop the actual discussion eh.

because he has
been misrepresenting what I said.

Like you misrepresented Alan Watts?

No One wrote, On 1/7/2008 1:38 AM:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts

 

[No One]

No One wrote, On 1/10/2008 4:52 PM:

So you just drop the actual discussion eh.

Tom was not discussing anything. He was just ranting, and you are not
even capable of replying to a whole sentence.

Like you misrepresented Alan Watts?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts

I've read some of Watts' writings and he in fact his understanding of
the natural world, science in particular, was sorely lacking, and
could be rather trite. Much of what he wrote was more in the realm of
poetry than fact. That's why I wrote "more or less", so as not to give
the impression that he published books of poems.

He seemed to think that a scientific understanding of the natural
world consisted merely of "linearizing" it in some way, yet he seemed
completely unaware that, when you make linear approximations, you
don't end up getting theories that are applicable over a range of
many, many orders of magnitude, nor do you get theories that can
predict an outcome to over 10 significant figures.

So, basically, what he said was far more poetry than fact. That
doesn't make him a bad writer, but what he wrote was primarily
entertainment for the counter culture at the time.

 

[Dionisio]

Dionisio is still angry about having been wrong on a different topic.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Senator Craig admitted his sins. Pity you can't accept that.

<Makes note to buy more silicon waffers.>


--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

You can take away our jobs;
You can refuse us the basic rights of citizenship;
You can withhold our economic and civil liberty;
You can beat us, jail us, curse us, and kill us;
You can threaten us with Hell;
And you can take away our children;
But you can never take away our Dignity.

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)