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

[Tom]

Tom is going to say "its that way by design".

I see you're not a big believer in finding much evidence before jumping to
conclusions.

 

[Tom]

Well, what I imagine you're trying to say is that the data is suspect
somehow because it wasn't collected the moment it happened.

You are correct in saying that you're imagining that. It's not what I'm
saying, but you are imagining that it is.

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.

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

 

[Tom]

Since we were not around a billion years ago, it stands to reason that the
collection was done somewhat more recently than that.

I agree. But No One asserted otherwise.

Yes, they have.

Now, didn't you just say that was not particularly reasonable?

Happy? You're all set up to make a point now. Please do so.

I had done so previously and I just did again. Let me know if you still
can't quite figure it out.

(And if it's the "skewed data-set argument" that's being taken care of.)

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

 

[No One]

That's another unsupported claim on your part.

.... which is why you keep snipping the "support"?

But do keep going. I wonder how many silly Usenet tantrum eptithets you'll
come up with. How about we count them?

"another lie on your part" That's one, so far.

You've been lying continually.

 

[No One]

Ok, then, don't. I don't mind.

Idiot.

 

[No One]

You don't want to answer that, I see. You said people had been collecting
data for a billion years and now you say that I'm an idiot for pointing out
that people have done no such thing.

Liar.

<snip>

 

[No One]

Well, I wouldn't insist that you're innocent because I've been collecting
data on you for a billion years.

Non sequitur.

 

[Scruffy McScruffovitch]

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

Yes, that does seem odd, alright. Let's ask ourselves why it looks
like a skeleton of some sort of unknown animal

It's not an unknown animal. We've given them names. We've even found a
few with the some soft tissue intact. The only funny shaped rock seems to
reside between your ears.

 

[Tom]

... which is why you keep snipping the "support"?

I'm glad you put that word in quotation marks, because that's how one
represents a mislabelled term. Your subsequent statements were not actually
support, even though you label them as such. Thus they were, as you aptly
put it, "support", but not really support at all.

You've been lying continually.

That's two.

 

[Tom]

Liar.

<snip>

So that's *not* what you meant in this exchange:

Yes, they have.

Did you really mean "No, they haven't"?

 

[Tom]

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


It's not an unknown animal.

It's not? We knew all about brachiosaurs before we ever saw any fossils of
them? How extraordinary! Perhaps you had been collecting data for hundreds
of millions of years already, so obviously you knew all about them long
before anybody ever found any fossils.

Well... that doesn't sound very reasonable, so it's probably not that. I'm
confident that you are *not* claiming to be hundreds of millions of years
old. I'm puzzled. Please explain to me how people can know all about
brachiosaurs before they ever saw any evidence of their existence.

 

[Tom]

Non sequitur.

Yes, indeed. We're even again.

 

[No One]

I'm glad you put that word in quotation marks, because that's how one
represents a mislabelled term. Your subsequent statements were not actually
support, even though you label them as such. Thus they were, as you aptly
put it, "support", but not really support at all.

It was in quotation marks because I was quoting the term you used - your
reply is yet another example of your dishonesty

That's two.

We can add one more lie on your part (maybe more) to the list.

 

[No One]

So that's *not* what you meant in this exchange:


Did you really mean "No, they haven't"?

Show the post in context - there's no message ID so I can't check
the original, and you obviously snipped something that would probably
make the context clear, specifically what "they" refers to.

Given your behavior, I really don't trust anything you post
..

 

[No One]

Yes, indeed. We're even again.

No, you are simply an idiot.

 

[Tom]

We can add one more lie on your part (maybe more) to the list.

It amuses me to note that no one is calling me a liar.

 

[Tom]

No, you are simply an idiot.

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

 

[Tom]

Show the post in context - there's no message ID so I can't check
the original,

And you can't remember writing that, eh? I'm not surprised. It's a very
convenient thing for you to forget.

Given your behavior, I really don't trust anything you post

Good idea. In fact, you should probably not trust anything that anybody
posts.

 

[No One]

It amuses me to note that no one is calling me a liar.

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.

 

[No One]

And you can't remember writing that, eh? I'm not surprised. It's a very
convenient thing for you to forget.

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. Without seeing the original - not a possibly
suspect quote from you - it is simply not clear if you even quoted
it accurately or if you snipped something that indicated I was
refering to something else, or if something simply came out a bit
garbled due to not proofreading.

So, produce the message ID - if you can't everyone should assume
you have something to hide.

Good idea. In fact, you should probably not trust anything that anybody
posts.

Guess again.