Live televised political debate coming to China, courtesy of the BBC

[Ace42]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/4264969.stm

What a coup. I wonder if the French lifting the arms embargo will be high on the agenda?

[Parkey]

I was on Question Time once...

[Ace42]

I was on Question Time once...

Oh, you got to ask a question? What was it and to whom?

[Parkey]

It was a right shit question. I was one of those with my hand up who just got lucky, not a pre-prepared one. It was during the whole run-up to the Iraq bother when the UN were under pressure etc. I asked whether they thought that with the likely run of events (i.e. not getting a 2nd resolution etc.) that the UN should be moved from the US to dissassociate it from overt USA influence (real or imagined) overseas. I got George Galloway and Germaine Greer having a right set to over it...

[Ace42]

Hehehe that sounds good. Did you get the brain freeze when the mike dropped on you? I was once on a similar radio based program, and as soon as the mike was in my face, my train of though was derailed and I trailed off like someone who had been immediately lobotomised.

[Parkey]

Hehehe that sounds good. Did you get the brain freeze when the mike dropped on you? I was once on a similar radio based program, and as soon as the mike was in my face, my train of though was derailed and I trailed off like someone who had been immediately lobotomised.
Too right! I just felt my face flooding... I had a T-Shirt in with 'Blow' written on the front and Dimbelby asked what it was about. What show were you on?

[Ace42]

"People's Assembley" on Radio Wales & Radio Cymru (Two different channels broadcasting the same thing. One English language, the other in Welsh).

Me and my housemate were guests of (The now Lord) Rev. Roger Roberts - a really nice man, and anti-war Lib Dem assembley member.

http://www.waleschamber.org/aelodau/aelodau/roberts_j_roger.html

I was talking about Iraq. Most of the debate was exclusively about it, and even the Labour MP was anti-war, leaving the conservative AM on his own in the face of three other parties all opposed.

The Tory guy was a scurvy shyster of the highest order.

[Parkey]

The Tory guy was a scurvy shyster of the highest order.

Ha! Quality.

[Ace42]

What was cooler was that they let me and my housem8 grab as many BBC logo ballpoints as we could stuff in our pockets. That kept my house in writing implements for over a year.

[ASsman]

Who the fuck speaks Welsh? Pfff, whatever.

[racer5.0stang]

Me and my housemate were guests of (The now Lord) Rev. Roger Roberts - a really nice man, and anti-war Lib Dem assembley member.

What is a housemate?

[ASsman]

BREAK THE WORD DOWN YOU F'ING JEW!


house Audio pronunciation of "house" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hous)
n. pl. hous·es (houzz, -sz)

1.
1. A structure serving as a dwelling for one or more persons, especially for a family.
2. A household or family.
2. Something, such as a burrow or shell, that serves as a shelter or habitation for a wild animal.
3. A dwelling for a group of people, such as students or members of a religious community, who live together as a unit: a sorority house.
4. A building that functions as the primary shelter or location of something: a carriage house; the lion house at the zoo.
5.
1. A facility, such as a theater or restaurant, that provides entertainment or food for the public: a movie house; the specialty of the house.
2. The audience or patrons of such an establishment: a full house.
6.
1. A commercial firm: a brokerage house.
2. A publishing company: a house that specializes in cookbooks.
3. A gambling casino.
4. Slang. A house of prostitution.
7. A residential college within a university.
8.
1. often House A legislative or deliberative assembly.
2. The hall or chamber in which such an assembly meets.
3. A quorum of such an assembly.
9. often House A family line including ancestors and descendants, especially a royal or noble family: the House of Orange.
10.
1. One of the 12 parts into which the heavens are divided in astrology.
2. The sign of the zodiac indicating the seat or station of a planet in the heavens. Also called mansion.
11. House music.

'


Mate

mate1 Audio pronunciation of "mate" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mt)
n.

1. One of a matched pair: the mate to this glove.
2. A spouse.
3.
1. Either of a pair of animals or birds that associate in order to propagate.
2. Either of a pair of animals brought together for breeding.
4.
1. A person with whom one is in close association; an associate.
2. Chiefly British. A good friend or companion.
3. A person with whom one shares living quarters. Often used in combination: advertised for a new flatmate.
5. A deck officer on a merchant ship ranking next below the master.
6. A U.S. Navy petty officer who is an assistant to a warrant officer.





I GUESS IT MEANS THEY FIST EACH OTHER WHILST WEARING LATEX GLOVES!

[Ace42]

What is a housemate?

Muh. What is a "room-mate" ? Now imagine that you live in the same house instead of the same room.

It is not neuroscience.

[racer5.0stang]

Muh. What is a "room-mate" ? Now imagine that you live in the same house instead of the same room.

It is not neuroscience.


Oh, I thought you lived with your parents.

[Ace42]

Unsurprisingly, I did not commute over six-hunded miles daily to go to university in a different country whilst living with my parents. Now if we have finished discussing my private life for no apparent reason, perhaps we could talk about political debate in China? Or not.

[racer5.0stang]

Unsurprisingly, I did not commute over six-hunded miles daily to go to university in a different country whilst living with my parents. Now if we have finished discussing my private life for no apparent reason, perhaps we could talk about political debate in China? Or not.


I am suprised that someone can tolerate you enough to be your room mate. I am sure it is not by choice.

If I am not mistaken, you brought up the conversation a/b your housemate.

[synch]

*grabs popcorn*

[ASsman]

I am suprised that someone can tolerate you enough to be your room mate. I am sure it is not by choice.

If I am not mistaken, you brought up the conversation a/b your housemate.
No he didn't bring up a conversation "a/b" his housemate, you did. DIFFERENCE. Jackass. He brought up a conversation about how he and his housemate got all this free shit, get over yourself Christian Jew boy.

Getting tired of you stupidity.

[Ace42]

I am suprised that someone can tolerate you enough to be your room mate. I am sure it is not by choice.

Housemate, not room-mate. One of half a dozen who had no problem living with me whatsoever. Infact, out of the house, I was apparently considered one of the most easy to live with. It is only after I left that tension mounted and people started moving out in order to escape each other. But then, you see the thing is that I didn't live with complete morons. This means that, unlike my conversations with you, I do not find myself correcting them frequently, probably reducing the greatest source of tension in our communications. Really, if you were not pea-brained, you might be able to have a conversation without making an ass of yourself. Likewise, if you were not so monumentally dull, you might realise that the reason no-one here agrees with you is because you are wrong, not because the posters here are somehow missing some mystical god-bothering truth that only you are privy to.

I can say it was entirely by choice, as half of my initial housemates actively requested I move in, which I was more than happy to oblige with. The fact that recently, one of the more recent housemates has left illustrates that he was more than capable of doing so if he had any problem with me. Apparently my absence was considered a factor in the subsequent disharmony.

If I am not mistaken, you brought up the conversation a/b your housemate.

Read the thread again, the conversation was not about my housemate, he was in a conversation about political debate broadcasts. That would be like me saying "Question Time is in London this week" and someone going off on one about how they got a dog from Battersea Dogs Home, and then saying "You are the one who brought up a conversation about London!"

So once again we come back to me talking about the totally irrelevant and banal comings and goings of my life, and having to correct you on your feeble grasp of the conversation, all because you do not think before you post. If ever.

Personally, I find it equally bizarre that anyone would voluntarily live with you (if anyone does, that is) on the grounds that it is a wonder that your ignorance hasn't made you a Darwin Award, and as such are a health hazard to anyone around you.

[Qdrop]

fuckin A...

look what you guys are arguing about...

just drop it.

when you argue with Racer about this kind of shit, it just pulls you down.....
ignore it....

and argue about china instead.... :rolleyes:

[Ace42]

It is only by constant chastisement that he'll learn that no wisdom will ever come out of his ignorance.

[Qdrop]

It is only by constant chastisement that he'll learn that no wisdom will ever come out of his ignorance.

that, or a sound beating.


oh, the limits of the internet.














i kid, i kid....
;)

[Ace42]

Racerstang is one of those peopel who'd just smirk as you try to beat some sense into him and say "You're just resorting to violence because you can't prove me wrong with your argument."

This is particularly ironic as he is consistantly proved wrong with rational arguments.

Stupidity can often be the greatest shield. It forms an impenetrable force-field that locks the ignorant in and information out.

[synch]

Racerstang is one of those peopel who'd just smirk as you try to beat some sense into him and say "You're just resorting to violence because you can't prove me wrong with your argument."
Possibly. But somehow I immagine him closing his eyes, facing the other way and trying to slap you by waving both hands in your general direction.

[ASsman]

The fucking Federation is under attack, (Deep Space 9), and you fuckers are arguing about some Bible thumper.

[Whois]

I look forward to sodomizing you all in hell...

/sarcasm (because some people...okay LOTS of people are fucking morons)

[Qdrop]

Stupidity can often be the greatest shield. It forms an impenetrable force-field that locks the ignorant in and information out.

also known as "religion".

[racer5.0stang]

also known as "religion".

I agree.

[racer5.0stang]

Racerstang is one of those peopel who'd just smirk as you try to beat some sense into him and say "You're just resorting to violence because you can't prove me wrong with your argument."

This is particularly ironic as he is consistantly proved wrong with rational arguments.

Stupidity can often be the greatest shield. It forms an impenetrable force-field that locks the ignorant in and information out.


I will admit that Ace has corrected me on several subjects, which I thank him for. But Ace nor anyone else on this board has not proved me wrong when it comes to Jesus Christ.

It is because I tell you the truth, that you don't believe me.

[ASsman]

PRAISE THE LORD-DA!

[yeahwho]

I once had a housemate that would always remark after eating fortune cookies that they tasted papery. He was not on the Chinese debate team.

[Ace42]

But Ace nor anyone else on this board has not proved me wrong when it comes to Jesus Christ.

It is because I tell you the truth, that you don't believe me.

The use of "Nor" makes that previous sentence a double-negative.

And you cannot claim to speak the "truth" because you do not and cannot "know" it is the truth. You *believe* it is the truth, but then you also *believe* that monkeys do not have opposable thumbs.

When you pass off your (rather dubious to say the least) opinion as not just fact, but The Truth (in big capitalised words) then you come across as a dumbass. But then, that is the product of most of your postings.

[racer5.0stang]

The use of "Nor" makes that previous sentence a double-negative.

And you cannot claim to speak the "truth" because you do not and cannot "know" it is the truth. You *believe* it is the truth, but then you also *believe* that monkeys do not have opposable thumbs.

When you pass off your (rather dubious to say the least) opinion as not just fact, but The Truth (in big capitalised words) then you come across as a dumbass. But then, that is the product of most of your postings.

I do know the truth. It is not a secret, we have known it for 1900 years. You just choose not to believe it.

Many people choose not to believe in God just so that they can live any life style they choose without the fear of consequence.

A wise man once wrote, "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

[Ace42]

I do know the truth.

No, you do not. You do not "Know" anything, because you are stupid.

For a belief to count as knowledge for a person, it must meet three conditions. First, knowledge must be true. We don’t just mean that someone thinks the idea is true. We mean that the idea is true. Members of the Flat Earth Society (believe it or not, there is such a thing!) think that the earth is flat. Do we count their belief as knowledge? Of course not! They believe the earth is flat, but their belief is false and hence can’t count as knowledge. Genuine knowledge is true.

(...)

Third, knowledge requires some other fact that legitimates the knower’s holding that belief. The belief must arise out of this legitimating fact; it must be grounded in this “something else.” Now we’re being vague because the exact nature of this legitimating fact is very hotly debated. But the importance of this legitimating fact is that it separates genuine knowledge from true beliefs that are held purely by chance. Obviously, we shouldn’t consider a true belief as knowledge if that belief was the result of a wild guess.

http://www.rzim.org/publications/essay_arttext.php?id=12

It is not a secret, we have known it for 1900 years.

No, you haven't. To know something there has to be a legitimating fact. Your arguments have no objective facts supporting them, nor even valid rational reasoning. Thus they cannot be "knowledge" and thus they cannot be "truth". At best they are simply conjecture, and you conject wrong with such alarming regularity that it counts against your case, not for it.

Many people choose not to believe in God just so that they can live any life style they choose without the fear of consequence.

Or maybe it is because people think that if something is true there is generally some evidence for it being true, and there is *NO* objective fact supporting your case at all.

This "truth" you speak of is nothing like any other truth on the planet.

1 + 1 = 2 is a truth. E=MC^2 is a truth.

What you are peddling is completely different to those, ergo it CANNOT be truth.

That doesn't mean it can't be *right* - but it certainly isn't fact, knowledge or "truth".

If it were a "truth" even someone as phenominally stupid as yourself would be able to make a reasonable argument or offer some supporting evidence. Yet people infinitly smarter than you (there are several billion to choose from) are incapable of it.

[Qdrop]

No, you do not. You do not "Know" anything, because you are stupid.



that's really all you had to say....
:p

[Ali]

I once had a housemate that would always remark after eating fortune cookies that they tasted papery. He was not on the Chinese debate team.LOL this's the only post worth reading on this stupid thread.

[SobaViolence]

The fucking Federation is under attack, (Deep Space 9), and you fuckers are arguing about some Bible thumper.

fucking lmdo...high-larious

[racer5.0stang]

http://www.rzim.org/publications/essay_arttext.php?id=12

You left this part out.

Second, knowledge must be believed. We must believe a claim (that is, we have to hold a belief as true) in order to know it. Of course, believing something isn’t enough to make it true, and not believing it doesn’t make it false. But without believing, a true idea isn’t knowledge for us. Suppose it’s true that one of my great-great-grandfathers was a Confederate Army lieutenant whose troops played a key role at the Battle of Fredericksburg. Now suppose I don’t know this fact and don’t have any particular beliefs about the lieutenant. In this case, it’s obviously true that my great-great-grandfather was this lieutenant, but it would be very odd to say that I know this about my great-great-grandfather. In fact, I probably have very few beliefs about my great-great-grandfathers. I can know generic things: eight persons who lived sometime in the last 250 years are my great-great-grandfathers. They were males; they fathered my great-grandparents; and none of them ever watched TV or received an e-mail. But since I don’t believe anything individually about any of them, I can’t be said to know anything distinctive about them as individuals. We must believe something to know it.

That doesn't mean it can't be *right* - but it certainly isn't fact, knowledge or "truth".

"Truth" is always right, it can never be wrong and it is fact, whether people acknowledge it or not.

[Qdrop]

"Truth" is always right, it can never be wrong and it is fact, whether people acknowledge it or not.

truth must be observable fact.

faith cannot be based on observable fact, by definition.

truth and faith CANNOT be synonomous.

[ASsman]

Dude if you're right, then I (a Jew) am wrong.


But I am right, so you're wrong.

HaH! Punk ass Hell believing WASP.

[Ace42]

You left this part out.

Because it was clearly irrelevant. What part of the quite simple "Of course, believing something isn’t enough to make it true, and not believing it doesn’t make it false." did you think justified your position?


"Truth" is always right, it can never be wrong and it is fact, whether people acknowledge it or not.

truth Audio pronunciation of "Truth" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trth)
n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
5.
1. Reality; actuality.
2. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

So, your beliefs:

Do not conform to facts (you have none) or actuality (you have no evidence).

It has not been proven as true, and the majority of people on the planet do not accept it as true.

And for it to be 'The supreme reality" it has to be *real* - as your belief does not conform to the facts or actuality, then it doesn't even qualify under this.

As you say, truth is true whether people beleive it or not. However, you do not *KNOW* what is true or not, and you *CANNOT* know what is true or not. Thus you have no reason, whatsoever, small or large, to believe your opinion is correct.

As the Beilby and Clark essay shows, merely being right coincidentally does not mean you *know* it. So even assuming your religious beliefs are correct (which is a generous assumption, considering your profound ignorance) that is only through pure chance, not because your opinion or belief structure is worth anything.

[racer5.0stang]

Do not conform to facts (you have none) or actuality (you have no evidence).

What "facts" are you referring to?

It has not been proven as true, and the majority of people on the planet do not accept it as true.

That does not disprove the Bible.

As you say, truth is true whether people beleive it or not. However, you do not *KNOW* what is true or not, and you *CANNOT* know what is true or not. Thus you have no reason, whatsoever, small or large, to believe your opinion is correct.

Everyone can know truth, it is a matter of accepting it.

So even assuming your religious beliefs are correct (which is a generous assumption, considering your profound ignorance) that is only through pure chance, not because your opinion or belief structure is worth anything.

I can assure you, it is not a guess. As I said before, the information has been out there for 1900 years.

The same information that you quoted about knowing truth(s) can be applied to evolution, therefore making the theory fallible.

[ASsman]

Meh, atleast it's a theory and not a make-believe-Mr.Rogers-playtime-fucking-bedtime-story.


That does not disprove the Bible.
Nor does it prove it, you are back to square 1, didn't teach you this in Catholic school? Or do I need to lecture you on claim - evidence - reasoning.


I can assure you, it is not a guess. As I said before, the information has been out there for 1900 years.
So you're wrong, and the Jews are right. OK.

[Ace42]

What "facts" are you referring to?

Read it again, it is very simple. I said you have NO facts to support your case. If you DID have some, then we would not be having this conversation.

That does not disprove the Bible.

No, but it does prove quite clearly that you do not "know" it is true, and that you cannot argue it is "true" - thus making your previous post *wrong*.

Everyone can know truth, it is a matter of accepting it.

Absolute bullshit. To "know" something, you have to have a valid line of reasoning behind it. As there is no valid line of reasoning behind your (false) version of "the truth" no-one can "know" it, they can only "believe" it.

Try thinking about your statement for all of 3 seconds, and you should be able to see why it is absolute bullshit.

There are numerous complicated mathematical formulae which are *undeniably true* - ditto with various physical laws and relationships.

By your argument, if ANYONE accepts they are true, then they *know* they are true.

So, if I told a little kid that E=MC^2 and he accepts that, according to your argument, he KNOWS it is true.

That is clearly bullshit. The kid BELIEVES it is true, but as he does not know what it means, how it works, or how to prove it is true, he clearly does not KNOW it.

Knowing something implies understanding. You can accept things you do not understand. Therefore acceptance and knowledge are not linked, and your statement is crap, just like all your other posts.

I can assure you, it is not a guess. As I said before, the information has been out there for 1900 years.

No, it hasn't. If you weren't so phenominally stupid, you'd be able to see why that gross simplification is absolute rubbish. The bible as your know it (KJA) has only been around since 1611AD. By my calculations, that is about 400 years. So you are out by about five times. Also, information to the contrary has been out for 5,000 years. As you do not know which source of information is actually correct, your preference is solely based on guesswork.

The same information that you quoted about knowing truth(s) can be applied to evolution, therefore making the theory fallible.

No, I can see why you'd think that (because you are stupid and ignorant, and as such incapable of rational thought or reasoning).

1. Genuine knowledge is true.

Evolutionary principles are undeniably true. As I have stated time and again, you can observe the evolution of microscopic organisms, etc with your own eyes.

2. Second, knowledge must be believed.

People are aware of Evolutionary theory, and give it credence. It clearly does not fail to meet this point, as it is not a "truth" that is unknown to mankind.

3. Third, knowledge requires some other fact that legitimates the knower’s holding that belief.

There are numerous pieces of evidence to support Evolutionary theory. From observations of micro-evolution, to discovering anthropoid ancestors, to the science of genetics, etc etc etc.

Evolution in its various incarnations generally fits with the facts as we know them.

Thus, you can have knowledge of evolutionary theory as opposed to merely having "Beliefs"

Why not save yourself future embarrassment, and wasting all of our time, and just admit to yourself that you do not know anything because you are a fool, and as such your superstitious convictions are totally unfounded and thus your arguments without merit.

[racer5.0stang]

Absolute bullshit. To "know" something, you have to have a valid line of reasoning behind it. As there is no valid line of reasoning behind your (false) version of "the truth" no-one can "know" it, they can only "believe" it.

Would you have the same argument for gravity, numbers, or space?

Knowing something implies understanding. You can accept things you do not understand. Therefore acceptance and knowledge are not linked, and your statement is crap, just like all your other posts.

Like you have not accepted that you are wrong.

No, it hasn't. If you weren't so phenominally stupid, you'd be able to see why that gross simplification is absolute rubbish. The bible as your know it (KJA) has only been around since 1611AD. By my calculations, that is about 400 years. So you are out by about five times. Also, information to the contrary has been out for 5,000 years. As you do not know which source of information is actually correct, your preference is solely based on guesswork.

I was not referring to the bible as we know it today, but when Jesus was alive, which was about 1900 years ago. And the 1611 King James Bible is the first translation into the English language, which means the bible (although not in one book) was around before 1611.

Evolutionary principles are undeniably true. As I have stated time and again, you can observe the evolution of microscopic organisms, etc with your own eyes.

So where is the missing link? You know, the half man half ape. Obviously evolution takes millions of years, so there should be plenty of bones from these creatures. Have we found one yet?

People are aware of Evolutionary theory, and give it credence. It clearly does not fail to meet this point, as it is not a "truth" that is unknown to mankind.

It is a guess, not truth. People also think Santa Claus is real or Elvis is still alive.

Thus, you can have knowledge of evolutionary theory as opposed to merely having "Beliefs"

One can have "knowledge" of the evolutionary theory, but they would still have choose whether or not to "believe" it is true or accurate.

[Schmeltz]

If you had any idea what you were talking about, racer, you'd know that the fossil record is far from complete, and new discoveries are being made all the time. (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s877478.htm) That's the beauty of science, you see - it's flexible, it changes to fit new information. It's possessed of a mutability that allows it to adapt to things like progress and development. It's not a static, monolithic collection of cultural relics and outright mythology - which I guess is why you have so much trouble relating to it and to the facts that it reveals.

Truth is anything you want it to be, but fact is something altogether different.

[Funkaloyd]

evolution takes millions of years, so there should be plenty of bones from these creatures.

Fossils are a rarity. Have you ever been for a walk in the woods? How many carcasses and bones did you see lying around? In heavily populated areas such as rainforests scavengers usually ensure that a carcass doesn't even last overnight. And of the few that do "survive" other animals, fewer become fossilized.

[Ace42]

Would you have the same argument for gravity, numbers, or space?

Yes, yes I would. And because theories to do with all of the above have a valid line of reasoning, and fit with the objective facts as we know them, they, unlike your superstition, meet that criterion.

Like you have not accepted that you are wrong.

Not only is that totally beside the point, but it is irrelevent. I am correct, you are not. It is that simple. If you were not stupid, you'd see that all the facts point to me being right, and all the facts point to you being wrong. It is a symptom of your ego-mania that you are convinced everyone else (including the world) is wrong, and your beliefs (which have nothing going for them whatsoever, other than the dubious status of "a belief held by a moron") are correct.

I was not referring to the bible as we know it today, but when Jesus was alive, which was about 1900 years ago.

Clearly then, the truth has not been out for 1900 years, as the original and exact words of Jesus are not available.

And the 1611 King James Bible is the first translation into the English language, which means the bible (although not in one book) was around before 1611.

But *NOT* the bible as you know it. Therefore, as you ONLY know the bible in English, you can only at best know a truth which is only *400* years old. Also, you are wrong again. The Tyndale bible is the first published translation into English. There was also the Geneva Bible which predates the KJA. But don't let facts interfere with your argument.

So where is the missing link?

Look in the mirror. But seriously, you don't understand evolution, so you don't even know what that question actually means. Even if I were to answer it, you'd still not understand it, just like you have trouble following a simple conversation which has no scientific content whatsoever. The "missing link" argument doesn't hold water for numerous reasons. If you accept Gould's "punctuated equilibria" theory of evolution, then there is no need for there to be a "missing link" and thus the answer would be "there isn't a missing link, because man went relatively quickly from one state of development to the other"

You could argue that "there were only 2 'missing links' in the entire world, and all mankind descended from them. The reason that we haven't found their skeletons is because finding two skeletons on the entire planet is like searching for a needle in a haystack"

That is just as plausible as your "Adam and Eve" fairy story, if not more so because at least that would correlate to observable scientific fact.

And at least with evolutionary theory, the flaws are a lack of evidence. With creationism, the flaw is that all scientific evidence shows that it is simply not possible.

And this is ignoring the fact pointed out subsequently, that only a very small percentage of carcasses get fossilised. Dinosaurs roamed the Earth for a lot longer than man has to this date. Thus, there are more fossilised dinosaur remains than there are remains of ancient man, because quite simply, the dinosaurs had a lot more time and inhabited a lot more of the planet than we have, even to this day. If you knew ANYTHING, you'd be able to work this out yourself.

It is a guess, not truth.

It is a "guess" that is in agreement with the facts. As opposed to your beliefs which are a guess which is contradicted by the facts.

One can have "knowledge" of the evolutionary theory, but they would still have choose whether or not to "believe" it is true or accurate.

And you seem to have misunderstood the section of the article about "belief" - if you read it again, they are using "belief" to mean "awareness of".

Again and again you make yourself seem like a fool. I am constantly amazed that you can function with so little understanding of the world in which you live in. No doubt you think planes are kept aloft by the power of prayer, and that aerodynamic theories are just "guesses".

And yet, these guesses allow you to say with certainty "this jet will fly" and "this liht will turn on when I flick this switch."

Now, why don't you prove that YOUR guesses are just as good, and jump off a really tall skyscraper, and use the power of prayer to fly. Then we'll see whose guess is right.

[Funkaloyd]

I am constantly amazed that you can function with so little understanding of the world in which you live in.
Aha. Fuck AOL for making the internet accessible to these people (http://www.gloucestercityhc.co.uk/images/lookalikes/cletus.jpg).

[racer5.0stang]

Not only is that totally beside the point, but it is irrelevent. I am correct, you are not. It is that simple. If you were not stupid, you'd see that all the facts point to me being right, and all the facts point to you being wrong. It is a symptom of your ego-mania that you are convinced everyone else (including the world) is wrong, and your beliefs (which have nothing going for them whatsoever, other than the dubious status of "a belief held by a moron") are correct.

That's funny. I don't think that I am the one on the ego trip, King Ace.

Clearly then, the truth has not been out for 1900 years, as the original and exact words of Jesus are not available.

They were available as soon as he spoke.

But *NOT* the bible as you know it. Therefore, as you ONLY know the bible in English, you can only at best know a truth which is only *400* years old. Also, you are wrong again. The Tyndale bible is the first published translation into English.

Yes, but Tyndale's bible is only the New Testament, he only completed the first five books of Moses before being martyred. The King James is the first complete bible in English and the orgininal is in old English. ie P's are F's and so on.

Look in the mirror.

That was funny. :D

It is a "guess" that is in agreement with the facts. As opposed to your beliefs which are a guess which is contradicted by the facts.

No, it is a guess that has had facts or other guesses manipulated to support it.

I am amazed that anyone, including myself, puts up with your ego trip and condescending attitude. I am sure all of us would act differently if not behind a monitor and keyboard.

[SobaViolence]

no, Ace is right. so quiet down.

[Qdrop]

I am sure all of us would act differently if not behind a monitor and keyboard.

well, at least you said ONE intelligent thing.
:rolleyes:

[Ace42]

That's funny. I don't think that I am the one on the ego trip, King Ace.

You are confusing egomania with an ego trip. Probably because you are a fool.


e·go·ma·ni·a Audio pronunciation of "Egomania" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-mn-, -mny, g-)
n.

Obsessive preoccupation with the self.

Thus, I can clearly not be an ego-maniac, as I cite sources in no way affiliated with myself in order to make a point. Your arguments are devoid of external merit, and thus the only reason you have for believing them is that you jsut happen to believe them. Thus egomaniacal.

They were available as soon as he spoke.

What, he shouted so loud that instantly everyone on the planet heard them in all languages known to mankind?

You are so full of shit.

Yes, but Tyndale's bible is only the New Testament, he only completed the first five books of Moses before being martyred.

Wrong, there is substantially more.

The King James is the first complete bible in English

Also wrong.

It would be unfortunate if the increasing interest in Tyndale should lead to disregard for his predecessors in the work of producing an English Bible. Nearly a hundred and fifty years before Tyndale's first edition of the English New Testament the first complete translation into English of the Old and New Testaments and of the Apocrypha was made by the followers of John Wyclif.

http://www.tyndale.org/TSJ/2/hudson.html

and the orgininal is in old English. ie P's are F's and so on.

Also wrong, it is in *MIDDLE ENGLISH* and to be precise *LATE MIDDLE ENGLISH* - you are between 400 and 1000 years out in your estimation. The *typography* has no bearing on whether it is old english or not.

No, it is a guess that has had facts or other guesses manipulated to support it.

And let me guess, the fact that monkeys have opposable thumbs is merely the product of some hideous conspiracy to prove you wrong?

You don't even understand the theories involved, and you do not even know the nature of the facts these theories are based on. Time and time again you have shown that you do not know anything about anything. So, you wouldn't know if the facts had been manipulated even if there was some conspiracy to keep your nutjob superstitions down.

However, for those of us who are not ignorant deluded fools, there are observable facts that anyone can go out and readily verify for themselves which show, quite clearly and catergorically, that there is no manipulation of the facts by anyone other than stupid creationists.

I am amazed that anyone, including myself, puts up with your ego trip and condescending attitude.

Firstly, I am not an egotist for the simple reason that I cite facts. To be an egotist I would have to be saying that I am particularly clever. Actually, if you re-read the sum total of my posts, they invariably describe *your* intelligence as sub-normal.

Me stating (quite rightly) that you are of below-average intelligence does not make *ME* boastful.

Secondly, you have proven time and time again that you are profoundly stupid. If you don't like dealing with the reality that I and other posters here relate to you, go and join a board more suited to people like you. I am sure there are plenty of forums for ignorant self-righteous god-botherers like yourself to fly in the face of all observable fact and pretend that there is even *ONE GOOD REASON* to persist it your delusions.

However, if you expect a single person to support your anti-intellectual mumbo-jumbo here, then expect to be disappointed. Even 100% Ill, whose zealous and dogmatic view of religion closely follows your own thinks you are an insufferable dullard.

You think *I* am on an ego-trip? I'm not the one who has proclaimed his world-view to be correct *without the slightest bit of corroborative evidence* - without even really understanding what it is he is saying is "The Truth".

I am amazed that anyone, including myself, puts up with your ego trip

People other than myself DO NOT put up with your insipid ravings. Be glad that I give you way more time than your worthless ass deserves - it would be quite easy for me to throw you on the "Beyond help" pile along with the other drooling basket cases. Or haven't you noticed that most people only converse with you to put you down? It's not because of your faith, you know. It's because you really are one of the stupidest posters on this forum.

I am sure all of us would act differently if not behind a monitor and keyboard.

Indeed, I'd not even give you the time of day if I were to meet you in person. It is only because this is a medium whose sole purpose is to converse with people you normally would not that I even acknowledge you.

[racer5.0stang]

Indeed, I'd not even give you the time of day if I were to meet you in person. It is only because this is a medium whose sole purpose is to converse with people you normally would not that I even acknowledge you.

So, does this mean we are not friends?

[Parkey]

So where is the missing link? You know, the half man half ape. Obviously evolution takes millions of years, so there should be plenty of bones from these creatures. Have we found one yet?



That old chesnut! Anyhow, have a read at this; Science & Religion (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1423450,00.html)

[ASsman]

It is a guess, not truth. People also think Santa Claus is real or Elvis is still alive.
Hahaha, or Jesus.....

HAhahaha. Anyways.

Remember to shake your A1 steaksauce BEFORE using it, all I got was watery goop shit. Totally blows.

[Whois]

"Elvis is everywhere, Elvis is everything, Elvis is everybody, Elvis is still the King..."

...and after the third day Elvis rose from the dead.

[ASsman]

This thread is giving me bad gas, like real bad...

pheww!

[Ali]

WTF does this thread have to do with TV, politics, China or... oh fuckit, never mind. The biblethumpers have hijacked it.