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

[Bassos]

.... which is a red herring,

No, it is not a red herring.
That is your imagination speaking up again.

It is the sole point tom has made.

You continue to think he means something by that point, going far and wide
beyond that single small point.

in doing so, you provide ample opportunity for tom to point you to your
flaws.
If you would only go back to the beginning and realise that your main point
is actually not contested at all, you would find peace.
(after some painfull realizations sure, but they are transitory)

Follow your own advise.

Good advice, i will stop responding after this message.
(contrary to you, i will actually do what i say)

I'm giving Tom static over it because he has
been misrepresenting what I said.

No he has not.
Your problem is that you read far too much into what tom writes.
He merely commented on the time of collecting evidence.
Your idea is that that comment means that the inferences of said data are
null.
he is not claiming that. he is only commenting on the time we are actually
actively collecting data.
just accept defeat and move on, you are bringing acting silly to extremes.
(kudos if acting silly is your strategy)

this is another example of you needing to shut the **** up and go away.

 

[No One]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Senator Craig admitted his sins.
Pity you can't accept that.
<Makes note to buy more silicon waffers.>

ROTFLAO - he cut a deal in the futile hope of sweeping it under the
rug and when it came out, he denied he did anything wrong. He did not
"admit his sins". His statements to the police and to the press were
that he was competely innocent. The only mistake he admitted to was
not fighting it in court immediately.

You can laugh at it - <http://nationalbanana.com/video/53> (the "I am
not gay" video spoof) is hilarious - but the fact is that he's denied
the accusations over and over.

 

[Meltdarok]

No One wrote, On 1/10/2008 6:52 PM:

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

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.

You seem to be unable to realize, even after your quote from Lord Kelvin,
that life is more than what we can poke, prod, mechanically scan,
and reduce to numbers. Life is also experience, and it is alright
to say, "I don't understand it yet."
No matter how you feel about "science" you are inextricably part
and parcel of the process you are attempting to read about, and as
we well know, humans have notoriously unreliable numbers.

Which is not to say of course that there is no attempt to analyze
the data of the ancient's cosmology in the paradigm of today, or
what those experiences for modern people are. And yes that means
that we are poking, prodding, mechanically scanning, and producing
numbers to scrutinize. Heh.

 

[No One]

No One wrote, On 1/10/2008 6:52 PM:


You seem to be unable to realize, even after your quote from Lord Kelvin,
that life is more than what we can poke, prod, mechanically scan,
and reduce to numbers. Life is also experience, and it is alright
to say, "I don't understand it yet."

You seem unable to realize that neither of you two characters has a
clue to what he or she knows what he/she is talking about, and are
reduced to babbling platitudes. Oh, and go back and read the quote
again - you seem to have gotten it backwards.

No matter how you feel about "science" you are inextricably part
and parcel of the process you are attempting to read about, and as
we well know, humans have notoriously unreliable numbers.

Which is why we've been able to measure physical quantities to an
accuracy of over 10 significant figures?

Which is not to say of course that there is no attempt to analyze
the data of the ancient's cosmology in the paradigm of today, or
what those experiences for modern people are. And yes that means
that we are poking, prodding, mechanically scanning, and producing
numbers to scrutinize. Heh.

You might want to stop babbling about topics you fundamentally do not
understand - it makes you look like a pretentious high school student.

 

[Meltdarok]

No One wrote, On 1/11/2008 1:25 AM:

You seem unable to realize that neither of you two characters has a
clue to what he or she knows what he/she is talking about, and are
reduced to babbling platitudes. Oh, and go back and read the quote
again - you seem to have gotten it backwards.


Which is why we've been able to measure physical quantities to an
accuracy of over 10 significant figures?


You might want to stop babbling about topics you fundamentally do not
understand - it makes you look like a pretentious high school student.

Actually, it's very clear that you are unaware. It is well noticed that
you are reduced to attempting to put down what *you* don't consider an
authority, and *not* the concepts themselves. This was indicated by how
you totally misrepresented Alan Watts--without a comment on his quote
at all, which of course challenged your own parochial thinking.

Another concept you can't handle: What if we had *no* hands to use?
You are definitely a finger worshiper, that's for sure.

 

[Tom]

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

No one corrects my capitalizations. No one says I'm a liar.

This is fun.

 

[Tom]

You're playing stupid games.

With no one.

 

[Tom]

Oh, so you lied once again!

You count as one of the silliest asses I've run across in a month. It is
absolutely impossible to take you seriously.

 

[Tom]

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

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.

You lied! This is proof! You said he was a poet. The fact is that he'd
never written any poetry. So it is self-evident that you lied! You are
exposed as a liar and therefore no matter what you may say from here on, it
will be said by a person who was caught redhanded lying, and so wil not be
believeable. Everything you ever wrote could be a lie and everything you
write in the future could also be a lie, because you're a liar and the proof
of that is right here in front of you.

Gee, I think we're even again. Your turn.

 

[No One]

No One wrote, On 1/11/2008 1:25 AM:

Actually, it's very clear that you are unaware. It is well noticed that
you are reduced to attempting to put down what *you* don't consider an
authority, and *not* the concepts themselves. This was indicated by how
you totally misrepresented Alan Watts--without a comment on his quote
at all, which of course challenged your own parochial thinking.

ROTFLMAO - you morons provided *no* concepts whatsoever beyond some
religious(?) mumbo jumbo. And I did not "totally misrpresent" Alan
Watts. I simply pointed out that what he wrote was more or less in
the realm of poetry (what most religious or new-age "philosophy"
consists of) rather than hard facts, and that is absolutely true.

Another concept you can't handle: What if we had *no* hands to use?
You are definitely a finger worshiper, that's for sure.

Idiot.

 

[Tom]

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


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

I've been trying, but it seems a bit ambiguous and convoluted. Maybe you
could clear it up. What point about fossils were you trying to make?

 

[Meltdarok]

No One wrote, On 1/11/2008 2:42 AM:

Idiot.

Bwaaahahaha!

What a freaking brilliant response!

 

[No One]

No one corrects my capitalizations. No one says I'm a liar.

This is fun.

Idiot.

 

[No One]

With no one.

Idiot.

 

[No One]

You count as one of the silliest asses I've run across in a month. It is
absolutely impossible to take you seriously.

Idiot, and documented liar.

 

[No One]

You lied! This is proof! You said he was a poet. The fact is that he'd
never written any poetry. So it is self-evident that you lied! You are
exposed as a liar and therefore no matter what you may say from here on, it
will be said by a person who was caught redhanded lying, and so wil not be
believeable. Everything you ever wrote could be a lie and everything you
write in the future could also be a lie, because you're a liar and the proof
of that is right here in front of you.

Gee, I think we're even again. Your turn.

Idiot.

 

[No One]

No One wrote, On 1/11/2008 2:42 AM:

Bwaaahahaha!

What a freaking brilliant response!

Idiot - there's nothing else to say about someone who acts as you
and your buddy Tom. You are both idiots.

 

[No One]

I've been trying, but it seems a bit ambiguous and convoluted. Maybe you
could clear it up. What point about fossils were you trying to make?

His point was clear enough, as is the fact that you lied about what he
said.

 

[Meltdarok]

No One wrote, On 1/11/2008 2:59 AM:

Idiot - there's nothing else to say about someone who acts as you
and your buddy Tom. You are both idiots.

You have nothing substantial to add, then attempt to blame someone else
for your own lack of a sufficient response. Notice also that you say,
"there's nothing else to say about someone. . ." In other words, you
have ceased even attempting to make your brain function, and have run
out of personal insults.

 

[Scruffy McScruffovitch]

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

I've been trying,

It doesn't seem that you have. Try harder.