| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Chris Thompson" |
| Date: |
25 Jan 2005 04:12:00 AM |
| Object: |
Re: More Bible Codes? |
wrote in
news:1106611944.438866.215750@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Thompson wrote re: Bible codes
She could even have arranged that such a code survive the
numerous revisions, translations, and alterations and deletions
involved
in the Bible's evolution over the last ca. 2000 years.
.........
Yeah, and SHE could have waited to get pregnant.
JM
What's wrong McCoy? Got something about referring to God as "She"?
Does God have a penis? A vagina and a clitoris?
Does God have a belly-button?
What scares you, McCoy?
Chris
aa2186
.
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
29 Jan 2005 03:27:17 AM |
|
|
"Chris Thompson" <erx99a24zbat@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E8EBFD4223Erockwallabyhotmailco@207.69.189.191...
mccoy@sunset.net wrote in
news:1106611944.438866.215750@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Thompson wrote re: Bible codes
She could even have arranged that such a code survive the
numerous revisions, translations, and alterations and deletions
involved
in the Bible's evolution over the last ca. 2000 years.
.........
Yeah, and SHE could have waited to get pregnant.
JM
What's wrong McCoy? Got something about referring to God as "She"?
Does God have a penis? A vagina and a clitoris?
Does God have a belly-button?
What scares you, McCoy?
Chris
aa2186
Anyone have two rocks handy?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
25 Jan 2005 07:00:53 AM |
|
|
Chris Thompson wrote:
mccoy@sunset.net wrote in
news:1106611944.438866.215750@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Thompson wrote re: Bible codes
She could even have arranged that such a code survive the
numerous revisions, translations, and alterations and deletions
involved
in the Bible's evolution over the last ca. 2000 years.
.........
Yeah, and SHE could have waited to get pregnant.
JM
What's wrong McCoy? Got something about referring to God as "She"?
Does God have a penis? A vagina and a clitoris?
Does God have a belly-button?
What scares you, McCoy?
Chris
aa2186
Why should it scare me, Chris? You're just putting out a meaningless
jumble of words that have no validity whatsoever. In fact, this isn't
your idea, but ideas that you've plagiarized somewhere else. On the
other hand, the Bible clearly tells us that in the resurrection men and
women will be "as the angels" in that they are not married and given in
marriage. So, in that since, the Biblical view is far logical than
your pseudo opinions.
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
25 Jan 2005 01:19:54 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1106636453.556787.212810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Chris Thompson wrote:
wrote in
news:1106611944.438866.215750@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Thompson wrote re: Bible codes
She could even have arranged that such a code survive the
numerous revisions, translations, and alterations and deletions
involved
in the Bible's evolution over the last ca. 2000 years.
.........
Yeah, and SHE could have waited to get pregnant.
JM
What's wrong McCoy? Got something about referring to God as "She"?
Does God have a penis? A vagina and a clitoris?
Does God have a belly-button?
What scares you, McCoy?
Chris
aa2186
Why should it scare me, Chris? You're just putting out a meaningless
jumble of words that have no validity whatsoever.
Meaningless? I am asking you about God's gender- if it exists at all. I
fid it convenient and amusing and appropriate to refer to God as female
at times. Why is that meaningless? And speaking of meaningless, I
evidently misunderstood what you wrote. Please inform me of the meaning
of "Yeah, and SHE could have waited to get pregnant." If it was a joke,
I didn't get it, and I apologize for snapping back at you.
In fact, this isn't
your idea, but ideas that you've plagiarized somewhere else. On the
Now that's a really serious accusation, Mr. McCoy. People in academic
positions take it a lot more seriously than you might realize- for me,
it would be a firing offense, especially since I am a couple years short
of tenure (although that is certainly not the reason I don't
plagiarize). Even for someone with tenure, in egregious cases it's
still a crash landing. It isn't an accusation to be thrown around
lightly. It's quite offensive, actually, and the best response I can
offer is "***** you".
other hand, the Bible clearly tells us that in the resurrection men
and women will be "as the angels" in that they are not married and
given in marriage. So, in that since, the Biblical view is far
logical than your pseudo opinions.
Who's talking about people? Or angels? I'm talking about God. Does God
have a penis and testes, a vagina, clitoris and ovaries, all of the
above, or nothing? Does God have gender? Is God's gender meaningless? If
the last, why do so many refer to God the Father? The Christian God can
obviously take on myriad forms- flaming plants (monoecious or dioecious,
I wonder), men, pure energy with sperm (presumably that's what
impregnated Mary). So does God's gender have any meaning at all? If not,
why not use the feminine as well as the masculine?
JM
--
Chris
aa#2186
Black helicopter mind-control-ray door-gunner
=====
"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so
as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry
on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that
sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually
on a battlefield." --George Orwell, 1946, "Under Your Nose"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
25 Jan 2005 06:19:31 PM |
|
|
"Chris Thompson" <cthompson@TAKEOUTbmcc.cuny.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns95E95B1F7E1ECerx99a24zbatTAKEOUTh@128.228.100.230...
mccoy@sunset.net wrote in
snipping
In fact, this isn't
your idea, but ideas that you've plagiarized somewhere else. On the
Now that's a really serious accusation, Mr. McCoy. People in academic
positions take it a lot more seriously than you might realize- for me,
it would be a firing offense, especially since I am a couple years short
of tenure (although that is certainly not the reason I don't
plagiarize). Even for someone with tenure, in egregious cases it's
still a crash landing. It isn't an accusation to be thrown around
lightly. It's quite offensive, actually, and the best response I can
offer is "***** you".
If I may explain, the reason that Clueless here is using the word
"plagarize", is that he doesn't understand the term. Some time ago, I
pointed out that his cutting and pasting a list of quotes from a creationist
website, without giving proper attribution was plagarism.
Since then he's tried to justify his crime by claiming that by that
standard, any use of concepts or ideas that others may have expressed is
plagarism. I've explained to him several times now how cutting and pasting
words from a website, and not providing proper attribution is plagarism, but
making use of well known arguments in a public discourse is not.
Either he still doesn't get the distinction, or he's too cowardly to admit
his dishonesty (or both).
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Euan Troup" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
25 Jan 2005 07:41:18 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:19:31 GMT, Dana Tweedy ascii'd:
Since then he's tried to justify his crime by claiming that by that
standard, any use of concepts or ideas that others may have expressed is
plagarism. I've explained to him several times now how cutting and pasting
words from a website, and not providing proper attribution is plagarism, but
making use of well known arguments in a public discourse is not.
Either he still doesn't get the distinction, or he's too cowardly to admit
his dishonesty (or both).
plag*I*arism
Dammit.
--
....mostly harmless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
25 Jan 2005 08:41:35 PM |
|
|
"Euan Troup" <etroup@ettin.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrncvd86u.5q2.etroup@etranger.localdomain...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:19:31 GMT, Dana Tweedy ascii'd:
Since then he's tried to justify his crime by claiming that by that
standard, any use of concepts or ideas that others may have expressed is
plagarism. I've explained to him several times now how cutting and
pasting
words from a website, and not providing proper attribution is plagarism,
but
making use of well known arguments in a public discourse is not.
Either he still doesn't get the distinction, or he's too cowardly to
admit
his dishonesty (or both).
plag*I*arism
Dammit.
My apologes can't wrte the letter " ", due to a chldhood trauma.
DJT
--
...mostly harmless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Euan Troup" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
25 Jan 2005 10:29:26 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:41:35 GMT, Dana Tweedy ascii'd:
"Euan Troup" <etroup@ettin.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrncvd86u.5q2.etroup@etranger.localdomain...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:19:31 GMT, Dana Tweedy ascii'd:
Since then he's tried to justify his crime by claiming that by that
standard, any use of concepts or ideas that others may have expressed is
plagarism. I've explained to him several times now how cutting and
pasting
words from a website, and not providing proper attribution is plagarism,
but
making use of well known arguments in a public discourse is not.
Either he still doesn't get the distinction, or he's too cowardly to
admit
his dishonesty (or both).
plag*I*arism
Dammit.
My apologes can't wrte the letter " ", due to a chldhood trauma.
Well, use the letter 'Y' instead, you silly bunt.
--
....mostly harmless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
26 Jan 2005 02:28:32 AM |
|
|
"Euan Troup" <etroup@ettin.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrncvdi26.5q2.etroup@etranger.localdomain...
snipping
plag*I*arism
Dammit.
My apologes can't wrte the letter " ", due to a chldhood trauma.
Well, use the letter 'Y' instead, you silly bunt.
Y can't be a bunt, Y have a penys
DJT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
26 Jan 2005 12:35:37 AM |
|
|
Euan Troup <etroup@ettin.localdomain> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:41:35 GMT, Dana Tweedy ascii'd:
"Euan Troup" <etroup@ettin.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrncvd86u.5q2.etroup@etranger.localdomain...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:19:31 GMT, Dana Tweedy ascii'd:
Since then he's tried to justify his crime by claiming that by that
standard, any use of concepts or ideas that others may have expressed is
plagarism. I've explained to him several times now how cutting and
pasting
words from a website, and not providing proper attribution is plagarism,
but
making use of well known arguments in a public discourse is not.
Either he still doesn't get the distinction, or he's too cowardly to
admit
his dishonesty (or both).
plag*I*arism
Dammit.
My apologes can't wrte the letter " ", due to a chldhood trauma.
Well, use the letter 'Y' instead, you silly bunt.
Y lyke thys technyque. Y'm a sylly pryck, then.
--
John S. Wilkins AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
26 Jan 2005 12:57:29 PM |
|
|
Euan Troup <etroup@ettin.localdomain> wrote in
news:slrncvd86u.5q2.etroup@etranger.localdomain:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:19:31 GMT, Dana Tweedy ascii'd:
Since then he's tried to justify his crime by claiming that by that
standard, any use of concepts or ideas that others may have expressed
is plagarism. I've explained to him several times now how cutting
and pasting words from a website, and not providing proper
attribution is plagarism, but making use of well known arguments in a
public discourse is not.
Either he still doesn't get the distinction, or he's too cowardly
to admit
his dishonesty (or both).
plag*I*arism
Dammit.
Yeah, dammt.
--
Chris
aa#2186
Black helicopter mind-control-ray door-gunner
=====
"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so
as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry
on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that
sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually
on a battlefield." --George Orwell, 1946, "Under Your Nose"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
26 Jan 2005 01:55:30 AM |
|
|
Chris,
Why don't you spend your time trying to find out the cure for cancer
instead of wasting your time with dumb arguments?
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
26 Jan 2005 02:26:31 AM |
|
|
<mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:1106704530.484072.119940@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Chris,
Why don't you spend your time trying to find out the cure for cancer
instead of wasting your time with dumb arguments?
Hey John,
Why don't you spend your time cleaning your toilet instead of wasting your
time providing dumb arguments?
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
26 Jan 2005 04:01:35 PM |
|
|
Dana Tweedy wrote:
<mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:1106704530.484072.119940@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Chris,
Why don't you spend your time trying to find out the cure for
cancer
instead of wasting your time with dumb arguments?
Hey John,
Why don't you spend your time cleaning your toilet instead of
wasting your
time providing dumb arguments?
DJT
What's so dumb about my argument that you site contradictory
information inorder to debunk Noah's Ark?
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
27 Jan 2005 01:45:03 AM |
|
|
<mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:1106755295.689201.204420@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dana Tweedy wrote:
<mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:1106704530.484072.119940@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Chris,
Why don't you spend your time trying to find out the cure for
cancer
instead of wasting your time with dumb arguments?
Hey John,
Why don't you spend your time cleaning your toilet instead of
wasting your
time providing dumb arguments?
DJT
What's so dumb about my argument that you site contradictory
information inorder to debunk Noah's Ark?
First, the word you are trying to use is "cite".
Second, It's your burden of proof to show that the geological object in
Turkey is "Noah's Ark".
Third, I don't "cite" contradictory information, everything I've cited
agrees that the object in Turkey is not Noah's Ark.
Fourth, no competent archeologist has ever declared the site to be "Noah's
Ark". You are basing your belief on the word of a con man and liar.
Fifth, you ignore all the other reasons why the Noah's Ark story is
mythical.
DJT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
27 Jan 2005 03:18:58 AM |
|
|
On 26 Jan 2005 08:01:35 -0800, said in alt.atheism:
What's so dumb about my argument that you site contradictory
information inorder to debunk Noah's Ark?
First, because no one sites information. (They may "cite" it.)
Second, because the biblical flood story, as told in the bible, is
patently impossible, aside from the fact that the evidence is that it
didn't happen.
--
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "A. Carlson" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
26 Jan 2005 08:47:47 PM |
|
|
On 26 Jan 2005 08:01:35 -0800, wrote:
Dana Tweedy wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1106704530.484072.119940@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Chris,
Why don't you spend your time trying to find out the cure for
cancer
instead of wasting your time with dumb arguments?
Hey John,
Why don't you spend your time cleaning your toilet instead of
wasting your
time providing dumb arguments?
DJT
What's so dumb about my argument that you site contradictory
information inorder to debunk Noah's Ark?
Since when does contradictory information automatically equate to an
idea being wrong?
Whenever you obtain better information you should be able to modify a
previously held position to incorporate any new relevant information.
If this means contradicting a previously held position to one degree
or another then so be it. In fact, if new information outright
contradicts previously held beliefs you are obliged to modify your
position.
It is the person (such as yourself and your old pal Wyatt) who takes a
number of unyielding positions and then refuses to change any of them
even in light of additional contrary information that cannot be
trusted.
Your constant harping about who contradicts who without honestly
taking into consideration the big picture is little more than
rationalizing. But then if it weren't for rationalizations and
fallacious arguments you wouldn't have anything to say.
Alex
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
27 Jan 2005 12:38:12 AM |
|
|
Carlson,
EVERY argument that you have made against Noah's Ark has been invalid.
Wrong, so to speak. You've cited Morris, Baumgardner, Fenner and
Collins.
Collins admits that there is a pattern of iron.
Morris says there is not, and no metal detector was used. Then he
contradicts himself in another study stating that there was a metal
detector, long after he made his initial conclusions.
Baumgardner said that he's against Noah's Ark because he used a dowsing
rod and it's forbidden by the Bible.
There you have it. That's the strength of your argument. On the other
hand I do keep harping on the fact that you haven't seen the 1985-6
Noah's Ark Field Studies video.
I am actually trying to get everyone to be a real scientist rather than
to be merely internet squatters who parrot what other "experts" say.
You need to see the direct evidence, the records and the studies.
Merely citing some scientists opinions do not count.
JM
A. Carlson wrote:
On 26 Jan 2005 08:01:35 -0800, wrote:
Dana Tweedy wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1106704530.484072.119940@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Chris,
Why don't you spend your time trying to find out the cure for
cancer
instead of wasting your time with dumb arguments?
Hey John,
Why don't you spend your time cleaning your toilet instead of
wasting your
time providing dumb arguments?
DJT
What's so dumb about my argument that you site contradictory
information inorder to debunk Noah's Ark?
Since when does contradictory information automatically equate to an
idea being wrong?
Whenever you obtain better information you should be able to modify a
previously held position to incorporate any new relevant information.
If this means contradicting a previously held position to one degree
or another then so be it. In fact, if new information outright
contradicts previously held beliefs you are obliged to modify your
position.
It is the person (such as yourself and your old pal Wyatt) who takes
a
number of unyielding positions and then refuses to change any of them
even in light of additional contrary information that cannot be
trusted.
Your constant harping about who contradicts who without honestly
taking into consideration the big picture is little more than
rationalizing. But then if it weren't for rationalizations and
fallacious arguments you wouldn't have anything to say.
Alex
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
27 Jan 2005 01:51:08 AM |
|
|
<mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:1106786292.595442.15460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Carlson,
EVERY argument that you have made against Noah's Ark has been invalid.
Wrong, so to speak. You've cited Morris, Baumgardner, Fenner and
Collins.
All of whom, including Morris have a better record of honesty than Wyatt.
Collins admits that there is a pattern of iron.
Which, if there is, is most likely naturally occuring.
Morris says there is not, and no metal detector was used.
As Alex has pointed out numerous times, that assertion is not true.
Then he
contradicts himself in another study stating that there was a metal
detector, long after he made his initial conclusions.
Which means your claims about Morris were wrong.
Baumgardner said that he's against Noah's Ark because he used a dowsing
rod and it's forbidden by the Bible.
Dowsing rods are not scientific either.
There you have it. That's the strength of your argument.
No, that's just some of the minor points.
On the other
hand I do keep harping on the fact that you haven't seen the 1985-6
Noah's Ark Field Studies video.
Which is meaningless harping. The video doesn't have the power to change a
lump of rock into a wooden ship.
I am actually trying to get everyone to be a real scientist rather than
to be merely internet squatters who parrot what other "experts" say.
So, when was the last time you looked up any of the claims made by Hovind,
Gish, Wyatt, or any other of your Creationist "experts"?
You need to see the direct evidence, the records and the studies.
Merely citing some scientists opinions do not count.
You need to consider that the evidence doesn't support your claims.
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
28 Jan 2005 08:59:26 AM |
|
|
Dana Tweedy wrote:
DJT
Dana Tweedy says that there isn't a pattern of iron because a met
dowsing was used to find iron. Isn't that a complete distortion?
David Fasold used the rods.
But Ron Wyatt brought two metal detectors and a radar.
Tweedy says, the WHOLE study is discredited because Fasold brought his
tools along. That's funny, because isn't this a logic error? Tweedy
argues, the pattern of iron that was located with metal detectors
doesn't exist because Fasold used a dowsing rod.
I guess the dowsing rods took over the project. That's illogical
Tweedy. And simply put, the 1985-6 Noah's Ark field studies video shows
the metal detector detecting the pattern and video was caught of
astronaut colonel Jim Irwin as having admitted as such.
That's kind of like saying that nobody got A's in an English class
because Bob, a student in that class got an F. Tweedy will argue, even
if video caught numerous others getting A's in the class, nobody got
A's because Bob got an F. What have you been smokin' ?
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
28 Jan 2005 07:58:11 PM |
|
|
<mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:1106902766.291507.47170@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dana Tweedy wrote:
DJT
Dana Tweedy says that there isn't a pattern of iron because a met
dowsing was used to find iron.
False. I said that if there is a pattern, it's most likely a natural
pattern. Dowsing rods are not scientific, so they would not indicate a
pattern of iron, or anything else. That doesn't mean there is, or is not a
pattern of iron.
Isn't that a complete distortion?
Yes, you did distort what I said.
David Fasold used the rods.
But Ron Wyatt brought two metal detectors and a radar.
The metal detectors were not used properly, and no one has been able to
duplicate the results of the radar scans.
Tweedy says, the WHOLE study is discredited because Fasold brought his
tools along.
No, I did not say that. However it does cast doubt on the validity of the
study.
That's funny, because isn't this a logic error?
No, it's more of a lie. You are re-writing your opponent's script to fit
your own misinterpetation.
Tweedy
argues, the pattern of iron that was located with metal detectors
doesn't exist because Fasold used a dowsing rod.
I never argued that. My statement is that dowsing rods are not
scientific. The metal detectors most likely did not find any pattern, as
they are not useful for more than a foot under ground. The supposed pattern
of iron was claimed to be much deeper than that. Therefore there's no solid
evidence of any pattern of iron, or other metal. Also, no followup was done
to see if there really was any iron in the areas where it was claimed.
I guess the dowsing rods took over the project. That's illogical
Tweedy.
That's not what I was claiming anyway.
And simply put, the 1985-6 Noah's Ark field studies video shows
the metal detector detecting the pattern and video was caught of
astronaut colonel Jim Irwin as having admitted as such.
What exactly did Irwin say? Irwin went away from the site unconvinced that
the site was Noah's Ark. Why, if he "admitted as such" would he remain
unconvinced? In any case, the presence of metal detectors is not at
issue. The issue is were they used in a manner where they could produce
reliable results? Also, was any of the "iron" ever excavated?
That's kind of like saying that nobody got A's in an English class
because Bob, a student in that class got an F. Tweedy will argue, even
if video caught numerous others getting A's in the class, nobody got
A's because Bob got an F. What have you been smokin' ?
That's a very odd mischaracterization of my argument, but then again, you
always had a penchant for re-writing the words of others. My statments
would be more correctly paraphrased as: Noah's ark is a myth. Wyatt's
claims about the site in Turkey are not based on evidence, but his personal
beliefs and his self agrandizing manner. The instruments used in the
"study" have been shown to be inproperly used, unscientific, and/or
irreproducible. Therefore any claims that the site is Noah's Ark are at
best wishful thinking, and at worst, fraud.
DJT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "A. Carlson" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
28 Jan 2005 10:57:29 AM |
|
|
On 28 Jan 2005 00:59:26 -0800, wrote:
Dana Tweedy wrote:
DJT
Dana Tweedy says that there isn't a pattern of iron because a met
dowsing was used to find iron. Isn't that a complete distortion?
Of what Dana Tweedy really said, yes that is a complete distortion.
David Fasold used the rods.
Yes, to lay out specific grid lines which he CLAIMED were there based
on his use of the dowsing rods.
But Ron Wyatt brought two metal detectors and a radar.
The results for which you are suggesting have never been duplicated by
others.
DID RON WYATT UTILIZE THE DOWSING DATA IN HIS RESULTS? He most
certainly defended the use of dowsing after the fact! And there is
certainly evidence showing them laying out a pattern based on the use
of dowsing rods.
Tweedy says, the WHOLE study is discredited because Fasold brought his
tools along.
And yet again McLiar reveals his tactic of totally misrepresenting the
views of those he disagrees with as well as pertinent facts
surrounding the case.
What is important IS NOT who brought the dowsing rods but that THEY
WERE INCORPORATED INTO THE SURVEY! A survey for which the findings
have not been duplicated without the use of dowsing rods.
And not only was this highly dubious method incorporated into the
survey, IT'S USE WAS ALSO DEFENDED BY WYATT AFTER THE FACT!
That's funny, because isn't this a logic error? Tweedy
argues, the pattern of iron that was located with metal detectors
doesn't exist because Fasold used a dowsing rod.
Yes, when you reword and distort other people's arguments you can
indeed create a logical error.
More to the point, if the pattern were really there (where the timbers
of the ark are laid out in such an elaborate pattern that Wyatt
ultimately claimed) then why hasn't any one else been able to
replicate this 'find' of Wyatt's? (or dig up said timbers to verify
their existence)
Also to what degree did laying out the alleged pattern based on the
dowsing rods have an effect on any subsequent data collected
SEPARATELY from any metal detectors?
You cannot get around the simple fact that the use of dowsing, a
method that Wyatt himself continued to defend, throws Wyatt's overall
conclusion based on a summary of ALL THE DATA (including dowsing) into
serious question.
And you have yet to explain how a metal detector that cannot penetrate
anywhere near as deep as would be called for under these circumstances
backs up the elaborate structure (all the way down to the keel) that
Wyatt claimed was evident.
I guess the dowsing rods took over the project.
No, but the use of them sure does highlight a certain lack of
credibility regarding Wyatt's survey. And don't forget the all
important fact that Wyatt actually continued to defend the dowsing
that was done.
That's illogical Tweedy.
YOU"RE A LIAR MCCOY!
And simply put, the 1985-6 Noah's Ark field studies video shows
the metal detector detecting the pattern and video was caught of
astronaut colonel Jim Irwin as having admitted as such.
And yet another person whose preconceived religious beliefs led him to
accept the possibility that the site was genuine but left unconvinced.
That's kind of like saying that nobody got A's in an English class
because Bob, a student in that class got an F. Tweedy will argue, even
if video caught numerous others getting A's in the class, nobody got
A's because Bob got an F. What have you been smokin' ?
DID THE USE OF DOWSING HAVE ANY INFLUENCE ON THE FINAL CONCLUSIONS
DRAWN BY WYATT?
DID RAW DATA FROM EITHER THE METAL DETECTOR OR THE GROUND PENETRATING
RADAR UNAMBIGUOUSLY AND SEPARATELY SUPPORT WYATT'S OVERALL CLAIM OF AN
ELABORATE PATTERN OF TIMBERS GOING ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE KEEL?
WAS THE FINAL CONCLUSION BASED ON MULTIPLE SOURCES OF DATA (including
the highly questionable ones)?
EXACTLY HOW SUBJECTIVE WAS THE EVIDENCE AT HAND?
This is what is important! Your analogy doesn't even come close to
representing what is truly going on here but I suppose that is the
best that you can do when you try and defend a colossal fraud such as
Wyatt.
Alex
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
27 Jan 2005 06:33:22 PM |
|
|
Dana Tweedy wrote:
<mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
DJT
Actually, you're wrong DJT. Your stand for falsehood has been noted.
Morris explicitly said in one study that NO metal detector was used.
He only changed his opinion because David Fasold sent him a video. In
other words Morris concluded his opinions based on the opinions of
Baumgardner and limited knowledge. Hs emotions and convictions were
based entirely on false information. But after he was challenged on
the facts he changed them. But since he was already looking for Noah's
Ark on Mt Ararat, a fact that you've failed to noticed, he wasn't
interested at all in an Ark that was someplace else.
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
27 Jan 2005 10:10:18 PM |
|
|
<mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:1106850802.603174.102250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dana Tweedy wrote:
<mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
DJT
Actually, you're wrong DJT.
About what?
Your stand for falsehood has been noted.
And logged, I hope.
Morris explicitly said in one study that NO metal detector was used.
What study is that?
He only changed his opinion because David Fasold sent him a video.
So, you are saying that Morris changed his mind, when presented with
evidence. Commendible, but not usual creationist practice.
In
other words Morris concluded his opinions based on the opinions of
Baumgardner and limited knowledge.
Or, upon his take on the evidence, or lack thereof. There are hundreds of
good reasons to reject the site as being Noah's Ark, not the least of which
being Wyatt's lack of credibility. The supposed non-presence of metal
detectors is only one reason to reject the site.
Hs emotions and convictions were
based entirely on false information.
He IS a creationist after all, what do you expect? But what makes you
think he was wrong about his statement that the site is not Noah's Ark? It
doesn't really matter if a metal detector was used (improperly, as it
appears), the site is not Noah's Ark. Your emotional attachment to the
site is based entirely on false information as well.
But after he was challenged on
the facts he changed them.
Something that Wyatt never did.
But since he was already looking for Noah's
Ark on Mt Ararat, a fact that you've failed to noticed,
Oh, I noticed it, I just didn't feel it was that important a point. There
are many Creationists looking for Noah's Ark, none have found it, not is it
likely anyone will. It's a myth. It's just not possible for the story to
have happened in the manner described in Genesis.
he wasn't
interested at all in an Ark that was someplace else.
Why wouldn't he be interested in any Ark existing? In any case, why
aren't you dealing with all the negative evidence? Your whole case is
based on the word of a con man and a liar. You can't provide any positive
evidence for your case, and you ignore the vast amount of evidence that
shows the site is not any kind of animal carrying nautical structure.
DJT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "A. Carlson" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
27 Jan 2005 09:29:54 PM |
|
|
On 27 Jan 2005 10:33:22 -0800, wrote:
Dana Tweedy wrote:
< > wrote in message
DJT
Actually, you're wrong DJT. Your stand for falsehood has been noted.
Morris explicitly said in one study that NO metal detector was used.
Was used, or was used in detecting the specific pattern (ark timber
layout and all) that Wyatt claimed and has yet to be duplicated
without dowsing?
He only changed his opinion because David Fasold sent him a video. In
other words Morris concluded his opinions based on the opinions of
Baumgardner and limited knowledge.
And not to mention two geological surveys of the site that he did
(See: "That Boat-Shaped Rock...," Creation Ex Nihilo, Sept-Nov 1990,
p. 16-19.), his own analysis of extensive radar scans taken at the
site as well as other raw data.
A geologist commenting on a geological formation - Will wonders never
cease! Honestly! Exactly how 'limited' was Dr. Morris's knowledge of
the site really?
Sounds like yet again you are distorting the facts to paint a false
portrait more in line with your (and Wyatt's original) predetermined
conclusions.
Hs emotions and convictions were based entirely on false information.
Entirely? Perhaps he didn't even visit the Durupinar site then,
because if he did that would mean that this particular statement of
yours is patently false.
But after he was challenged on the facts he changed them.
But since he was already looking for Noah's
Ark on Mt Ararat, a fact that you've failed to noticed,
You must be under the delusion that everyone must view all information
in the same way. Just because someone reaches a different conclusion
than you does not mean they are failing to notice anything in
particular.
Perhaps they are simply better informed than you are. Kind of like
all those experts who ultimately came to the conclusion that amateur
archaeologist/nurse anesthetist/religious fanatic Wyatt was wrong
after all when all of the evidence produced was finally factored in.
he wasn't interested at all in an Ark that was someplace else.
Well, when one site turns out to be a bust it is only natural that he
would go looking elsewhere.
Alex
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
27 Jan 2005 10:44:02 PM |
|
|
AC
You've said that I am deluded in my belief that the Durupinar site is
Noah's Ark. But actually AC, I used to believe that the Durupinar site
was a natural site. In fact the first time I saw the picture that
resulted from the U2 flight I was upset. I was upset because the
Durupinar site DID look like an Ark, but it didn't fit my preconceived
notions about what the Ark should look like, and secondly it wasn't
where I had thought it would be. I was deluded into thinking that the
Ark had to be a rectangular box. Later I saw Morris' initial paper
regarding the site. And of course I accepted it as Gospel fact. Years
later when I covered Wyatt's meeting for a story in a newspaper I
initially was dismayed to see the first topic regarding the
presentation the Durupinar site.
But as a researcher as opposed to an arm-chair professor, I found the
Durupinar site to be credible .
Morris did not engage personally in two supposed studies on the site.
He is actually referring to Baumgardner's involvement.
Baumgardner and Fenner, however, made the mistake of not replicating
Fasold and Wyatt's scans by not using the same mghertz levels (theirs
was set to automatic). Fenner attributes possible reasons as to why he
thought Wyatt got the readings and he had not. He said that the
readings could have been gotten someplace else and attributed to the
site, that Wyatt couldn't operate the equipment, or that there is
fabrication. But the fact be told, FASOLD and not Wyatt ran the
scanner. That's wrong #1. Second, the whole operation was videoed on
site. That's wrong #2. Third, GSSI says that their equipment can't be
tampered with. That's wrong #3.
With three wrongs and Fenner can't get it right, yet more than seven
times did Carlson say that Fenner is right even though he got it wrong
on all three speculative counts.
And still, Carlson hasn't seen the 1985-6 Noah's Ark Field Studies
video.
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "A. Carlson" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
28 Jan 2005 08:20:01 AM |
|
|
On 27 Jan 2005 14:44:02 -0800, wrote:
AC
You've said that I am deluded in my belief that the Durupinar site is
Noah's Ark. But actually AC, I used to believe that the Durupinar site
was a natural site. In fact the first time I saw the picture that
resulted from the U2 flight I was upset. I was upset because the
Durupinar site DID look like an Ark, but it didn't fit my preconceived
notions about what the Ark should look like, and secondly it wasn't
where I had thought it would be.
In other words, you readily admit that you were thoroughly convinced
of the FACT of the ark's existence from the get-go and interpreted any
potential site based on this obvious bias of yours, even allowing
evidence contrary to this bias of yours to 'upset' you.
I was deluded into thinking that the
Ark had to be a rectangular box.
Your real delusions are more directly related to your blindly
accepting Noah's ark as being literally true in the first place.
Obvious religious bias noted!
Later I saw Morris' initial paper
regarding the site. And of course I accepted it as Gospel fact.
Yes, blindly accepting a paper (?in a reputable journal?) that fits
your preconceived religious belief certainly fits the bill when it
comes to you.
Now that you 'know' that this paper that you so blindly accepted as
fact is no longer 'true', what does that tell you about your
willingness to believe any such claim that reflects your religious
bias?
Years
later when I covered Wyatt's meeting for a story in a newspaper I
initially was dismayed to see the first topic regarding the
presentation the Durupinar site.
But as a researcher as opposed to an arm-chair professor, I found the
Durupinar site to be credible .
And yet you continue to denigrate any and all far better QUALIFIED
researchers who have gone to the site and found it severely wanting.
Apparently their religious biases were not as strongly held as yours
obviously are.
Morris did not engage personally in two supposed studies on the site.
He is actually referring to Baumgardner's involvement.
Are you saying then that he never went to the site or that he never
examined the raw evidence himself?
Because if you are, either he is lying or you are, and in this case I
know who I'd put my money on.
If you're not, then you continue to deliberately mischaracterize his
involvement in the furtherance of a bigger lie.
Morris's discussion about the Durupinar site, including comments about
"[his own] two field studies and the investigations by many others"
(including actual evidence gathered) can be read at:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-231.htm
Perhaps now you could actually point out where he is lying. NOTE:
Reaching a honestly held different conclusion is not a lie!
Baumgardner and Fenner, however, made the mistake of not replicating
Fasold and Wyatt's scans by not using the same mghertz levels (theirs
was set to automatic).
Fasold and Wyatt's scan? You mean the very brief, very partial scan
that Fenner initially thought MIGHT indicate structure? (but upon
further analysis was not confirmed)
Perhaps you could point to where these scans of Wyatt's were
independently interpreted and verified by someone who was: 1) Not a
religious zealot who was thoroughly convinced of the site even before
he first set foot on it (IE, someone who did not have a major built in
bias); and 2) Someone whose expertise in the field went beyond passing
gas as a nurse anesthetist.
At best, what you have here is a highly subjective readout interpreted
by a religious zealot with a penchant for grandiose (and sometimes
outright fraudulent) claims.
Their real mistakes were to buy into Wyatt's religious zeal in the
first place and believe that the site might actually be Noah's ark.
Another of Baumgardner's mistakes was to blindly accept a method of
dowsing as a valid survey method. The difference between Baumgardner
and Wyatt in regards to this is that at least Baumgardner, for
whatever reason, was able to finally disregard this most bogus of
methods.
Another major shortcoming that you so blithely ignore here is the fact
that NO ONE HAS REPLICATED THE METAL DETECTOR SCANS WITHOUT USING
DOWSING RODS! And still no one has replicated the radar scans either.
Fenner attributes possible reasons as to why he
thought Wyatt got the readings and he had not. He said that the
readings could have been gotten someplace else and attributed to the
site, that Wyatt couldn't operate the equipment, or that there is
fabrication.
But the fact be told, FASOLD and not Wyatt ran the
scanner. That's wrong #1.
SO WHAT! What matters is not as much which clown was actually passing
the piece of equipment over the site but:
a) Who interpreted the output?
b) What qualifications and degree of experience, if any, did this
individual have in INTERPRETING the data?
c) Did the INTERPRETATION go beyond the limitations of the data?
d) How subjective would such an INTERPRETATION be?
e) What level of validity should that INTERPRETATION carry?
f) What QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL validated said claim (preferably someone
without a horse in the race - READ: WITHOUT WYATT"S VERY CLEAR
RELIGIOUSLY BASED PRECONCEIVED BIAS)
NOTE: Not one of these issues has ANYTHING to do with who actually
ran the scanner, not that there aren't also potential issues with that
though.
Second, the whole operation was videoed on site. That's wrong #2.
And what does that have to do with any of the stated issues above?
I'm not aware of anyone who doesn't concede that scans were done at
the site, only a SUPPOSITION at one point that the scans that Wyatt
held in his hand at a certain point might not have been the same ones
taken at the site.
Third, GSSI says that their equipment can't be tampered with. That's wrong #3.
And which WAS NOT the supposition that was being made!
NAME EVEN ONE PERSON WHO HAS MADE THE SPECIFIC CLAIM THAT THE
EQUIPMENT WAS TAMPERED WITH! JUST ONE! (Other than you and your
pathetic attempts at twisting other people's words)
With three wrongs and Fenner can't get it right, yet more than seven
times did Carlson say that Fenner is right even though he got it wrong
on all three speculative counts.
1) The results are directly related to the interpretation, not who
actually ran the scan. This isn't the first time that I've pointed
out this very obvious FACT!
2) I've also pointed out that the supposition that something might
not have been right with the readouts supposedly from the very brief
scan done by Wyatt and company was just that, a supposition, and that
the issue of whether or not the procedure itself was on video is
largely mute.
3) I've attempted in vain to point out to you the difference between
'fabrication' of the data, which could potentially be done in a number
of ways, and 'Tampering', and how your ASSERTION that Fenner was
actually claiming that the equipment was tampered with is simply NOT
TRUE!
His actual claim was that the original DATA "was erroneous. At best
incompetence or, at worst fabrication..." .
And one thing to say in Fenner's defense is that:
1) He was far better qualified that Wyatt (which is true of most of
Wyatt's critics).
2) Regardless of any ancillary issues, at least Fenner tried to
duplicate Wyatt's original claimed survey using ONLY VALID METHODS,
which is far more than what can honestly be said about Wyatt's
surveys.
And still, Carlson hasn't seen the 1985-6 Noah's Ark Field Studies
video.
You mean the one that shows them dowsing?
Alex
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "A. Carlson" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
27 Jan 2005 12:40:17 PM |
|
|
On 26 Jan 2005 16:38:12 -0800, wrote:
Carlson,
EVERY argument that you have made against Noah's Ark has been invalid.
Wrong, so to speak. You've cited Morris, Baumgardner, Fenner and
Collins.
Typical McLiar's attempt at obfuscation by clipping relevant question
and then avoiding to address both the question at hand or the far more
relevant points about what you do choose to distort.
Collins admits that there is a pattern of iron.
Based on what evidence and what definition of 'pattern'?
Is it your position that any 'pattern' found in nature must be
man-made? I can certainly provide you with many counter examples of
this.
Morris says there is not,
Which definition(s) of 'pattern' are relevant in both Collin's and
Morris's comments?
One (of several) definitions of pattern is: '5: a natural or chance
configuration.' (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary - 10th
Edition)
What evidence were they each basing their comments on?
At a minimum, you may simply be reflecting two different definitions
of a somewhat ambiguous word.
and no metal detector was used.
LIAR! You know damn well that isn't true! How many times must I cite
Morris's own words that prove you wrong?
Then he
contradicts himself in another study stating that there was a metal
detector, long after he made his initial conclusions.
Then cite where He stated that no metal detector was used - AT ALL!.
Unlike Wyatt and company, at least Morris was fully aware of and
incorporated Wyatt's team's use of dowsing rods in his cite when
discussing Wyatt's use of 'metal detectors' (including the molecular
frequency generator) and how it related to the so-called detection of
some sort of 'pattern'.
Baumgardner said that he's against Noah's Ark because he used a dowsing
rod and it's forbidden by the Bible.
Maybe his given reason for rejecting dowsing is a bit fallacious but
at least he rejected this totally bogus method, something that Wyatt
continued to defend.
There you have it. That's the strength of your argument.
No, that would be your distortion of my argument. I can't help but
notice that you continue to leave out a number of pertinent points
that I have continuously made:
- Wyatt made numerous fraudulent claims with those made in relation to
the Durupinar site only representing a few of them.
- Wyatt claimed divine guidance almost every step of the way, just as
he did regarding is patently false claim that he 'discovered' the ark
of the covenant, conveniently with no confirming evidence for his many
claims of a supernatural nature.
- Wyatt made up his mind that the site contained Noah's ark long
before he even set foot in the region for the very first time.
- Of those claims that Wyatt made that were not supernatural in nature
(and unsupported as well), most were based on highly subjective pieces
of 'evidence' for which Wyatt provided unfounded interpretations.
- Even while most of those around him came to see the light as further
evidence was developed, Wyatt refused to budge from his initial
assertions about the site. (This goes directly to the point that
others came to change their views and therefore 'contradicted' each
other and their own earlier viewpoints.)
- A dowsing rod was indeed used as part of Wyatt's survey of the
Durupinar site.
- Dowsing has absolutely no legitimacy in the real world of science.
- Wyatt not only used Dowsing but continued to defend its use.
- The conventional off-the-shelf metal detector would not have been
able to detect far enough below the surface to provide evidence for
what Wyatt was claiming.
- No other team has been able to replicate Wyatt's initial claim based
at least in part on dowsing.
- Subsequent core samples not only failed to substantiate initial
claims/beliefs about the site but actually contradicted them.
- Morris's (wasn't he actually a bona-fide Geologist?) comments about
the use of a CONVENTIONAL metal detector was clearly in reference to
the claimed 'detection' of a regular pattern, not a natural one.
On the other
hand I do keep harping on the fact that you haven't seen the 1985-6
Noah's Ark Field Studies video.
You mean the one that shows them using a dowsing rod?
I am actually trying to get everyone to be a real scientist rather than
to be merely internet squatters who parrot what other "experts" say.
I am not merely parroting someone when I say that dowsing has no
legitimate purpose at an archaeological survey site, even when talking
about pseudo-archaeologists/nurse anesthetists like Wyatt. I actually
know the score and I am aware of research done concerning the lack of
legitimacy when it comes to dowsing.
You need to see the direct evidence, the records and the studies.
Merely citing some scientists opinions do not count.
Beats the hell out of citing a fraud like Wyatt followed up by
selective use of evidence, ignoring the embarrassing parts, and mixing
it all together with a bunch of fallacious arguments and distortions
of the arguments of others.
And by the way, you never properly addressed my question and the
following points:
Since when does contradictory information automatically equate
to an idea being wrong?
Whenever you obtain better information you should be able to
modify a previously held position to incorporate any new relevant
information. If this means contradicting a previously held position
to one degree or another then so be it. In fact, if new
information outright contradicts previously held beliefs you are
obliged to modify your position.
It is the person (such as yourself and your old pal Wyatt) who
takes a number of unyielding positions and then refuses to change
any of them even in light of additional contrary information that
cannot be trusted.
Can't blame you for avoiding this though. It doesn't exactly go well
with your rationalizations.
Alex.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
28 Jan 2005 09:26:35 AM |
|
|
AC,
Your arguments are dishonest.
It doesn't matter if Wyatt defended the use or the divining rods. It
doesn't matter if they were used on the site. It doesn't matter if I
know a man who is a professional dowser and locates water throughout
the country and charges $500/acre. It doesn't matter if there's an
article on him in the Sacramento Bee and the journalist who wrote the
article tried dowsing and was successful.
Do you know why it doesn't matter if Wyatt defends the rods? It
doesn't matter because the 1985-6 Noah's Ark Field Studies video, the
one you haven't seen, shows the metal detectors getting the pattern of
iron.
Your ridiculous argument is sort of like saying that nobody got an A in
English class because Bob got an F. Even if there was a video showing
many getting A's you would argue that because Bob got an F that means
nobody got an A? Well, there is a video that shows metal detectors
getting a pattern, and just because a set of rods were brought to the
site by Fasold, or that Wyatt defends the usefulness thereof, doesn't
mean that there isn't any video that shows a pattern out there. That's
a ridiculous argument, Carlson.
And regarding that English class, Carlson, even though if just one
person claimed that he had divine guidance in obtaining an A, it
doesn't mean that a paper with his name on it with the letter A on it
doesn't exist. Frankly, Carlson, I had my bike stolen one time and I
have eyewitnesses that will testify that this actually happened. But I
believe my success in getting it back had to do with God. You do not
have to believe it, but eyewitnesses can testify to the truth of it.
And no matter what you say or believe won't change the fact that it
happened.
Frankly the fact that Wyatt rediscovered the site at a time that GPS
units did not exist either proves that he had divine guidance or that
he was highly intelligent. But since you think he isn't intelligent
explain to me how he did find it. Wyatt is just an honest man and gave
proper attribution to the discovery. If he kept his mouth shut he
wouldn't have the likes of you ridiculing him. And you do like to
ridicule people of faith, don't you, Carlson? Frankly, you haven't
accomplished anything of note that I know of, except to show what
ridiculous extremes you are willing to take inorder to discredit the
truth.
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
28 Jan 2005 08:24:21 PM |
|
|
<mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:1106904395.894385.157520@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
snipping
Frankly the fact that Wyatt rediscovered the site at a time that GPS
units did not exist either proves that he had divine guidance or that
he was highly intelligent.
Are you seriously claiming that it was impossible to find geological
features on earth before the invention of GPS? The fact that Edmond
Hillary found Mt Everest before the invention of GPS means that Hillary had
divine guidance? That Heinrich Schlieman found Troy, before the invention
of GPS means that Schlieman had guidance from the Greek Gods? Did the
discovery of Macchu Pichu mean that it's discoverers had the guidance of the
Inca Gods?
But since you think he isn't intelligent
explain to me how he did find it.
Maybe he could read a map?
Wyatt is just an honest man and gave
proper attribution to the discovery. If he kept his mouth shut he
wouldn't have the likes of you ridiculing him.
If he'd kept his mouth shut, he wouldn't have been able to bilk others out
of their cash.
And you do like to
ridicule people of faith, don't you, Carlson?
He's not ridiculing people of faith, he's ridiculing the ridiculous.
Frankly, you haven't
accomplished anything of note that I know of, except to show what
ridiculous extremes you are willing to take inorder to discredit the
truth.
And your accomplishments are? You got your bike stolen and returned by
God? You've got an iron pyrite crystal in a rock matrix?
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: More Bible Codes? |
28 Jan 2005 10:59:33 PM |
|
|
Dana Tweedy wrote:
DJT
Are you saying that Ron Wyatt was smart enough to find the Durupinar
site? I would say that even with instructions it would be hard to
locate. I've been there. It's situated in an area that you wouldn't
expect.
Wyatt did make an effort to find all the individuals who had been there
before, but was unable to get the instructions. Nobody has come out
saying that Wyatt lied about this. If any of these individuals had
given him instructions they would have come out by now.
JM
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|