Don't dictate beliefs

[KJV]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>Soon as you change into Givemeliberty or Chess Jurist, I'll change into langoliers or KJV, lol.

But don't hold your breath, since I am just me and no one else.

Besides, I could never take credit for Noah and his family comprising the 100%- that wit belongs to Lanoliers. I'm still laughing over that one because it was so true and made you look so very much more stupid than you already did, lol.

You didn't deny you try to dictate your beliefs. How could you, being as you were so obvious with it?

"Besides, I could never take credit for Noah and his family comprising the 100%- that wit belongs to Lanoliers. I'm still laughing over that one because it was so true and made you look so very much more stupid than you already did, lol."

I almost pissed my pants when I read that one.

[KJV]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>Okay.....and we Christians will try to respect your right to remain uninformed.

He's got a wooden head!
He can't learn. LOL

[KJV]

Khatru wrote:

<quoted text>Ha ha ha!

We all know what sort of things your information consists of.

Information like:

Talking snakes and donkeys, Pi = 3, bats are birds, rabbits chew the cud, genocide is good, dragons and cockatrices are real, subjugation of women is good, killing homosexuals is good, killing people for exercising freedom of religion is good, slavery is good, etc.

Neither do I want to read any information about the 2000 year old zombie that you're in telepathic contact with.

Why are you here?

You like being the fool?

[derek4]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
"Besides, I could never take credit for Noah and his family comprising the 100%- that wit belongs to Lanoliers. I'm still laughing over that one because it was so true and made you look so very much more stupid than you already did, lol."
I almost pissed my pants when I read that one.

Hahaha....it was a good one, right!

And so was this one from you to Miss Khatru, the UK dingbat:

"All I need to know is that the Bible says Pi = 3"

I know it's all you know. But you even got that wrong!

[KJV]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>In other words, you don't trust Wikipedia, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Discover Magazine, Scientific American, rsm journals, The Chicago Tribune, etc (those are where most of my posts come from).

What sources support YOU? "Khatru", "Khatru", and "Khatru" ? Yee? LOl - that's what I thought. In other words, you have nothing.

He's got termites on the brain!

[Chess Jurist]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Not at all, your group is calling us 3 the same person! That would make us kind of special, being in 3 places at the same time and all that goes with that claim.

Who's my group, thief?

[KJV]

Reason Personified wrote:

<quoted text>Was Hitler a Christian?

Yes, he was. You can't dispute that. He considered himself Christain, and it doesn't matter what anybody says more than half a century later. Adolph Hitler was Christain.

"Adolph Hitler was Christain."

This is all the proof needed that "Reason Personified" never be taken seriously.

[KJV]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>Hahaha....it was a good one, right!

And so was this one from you to Miss Khatru, the UK dingbat:

"All I need to know is that the Bible says Pi = 3"

I know it's all you know. But you even got that wrong!

Thanks but they really make it to easy!

[derek4]

It's been a real joy chatting with everyone this morning.

I will be going out for the afternoon to do some Saturday chores, but I want you atheists to know that I will not forget you.

I'll be back at the earliest opportunity to post some more links for you about the frauds and misconducts of science, and those unreliable textbooks – and /or or some other like materials to keep you better informed.

Oh, and by the way, Khatru, I don't blame you for not wanting to read about 2000 year old zombies – I don't either!!!!

[Chess Jurist]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
Lol – No dishonesty from me. The Darwin quotation you are objecting to was found here:
XXAUTOLINK-0-XX
It was also found on other web pages. In fact, it's all over the internet, exactly as I copied and pasted it:“Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.”
Should you wish to dispute the quotation or the authenticity of it, you need to contact the web pages, not me. You have your work cut out for you, since there are many, many web pages which publish the quote just as I posted it, but I'm sure they will all be delighted to hear from you. I have no interest in your post, but maybe one of the web page publishers will offer you a position on their editorial staff; lmao.

Translation: Don't blame the above poster for copying dishonest apolegetics; blame his source and those who copied from his source or a common source.

Let's recap.

The poster posted a partial sentence from Darwin as a complete sentence:

“Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.”

XXAUTOLINK-1-XX

The actual sentence reads:

"For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy."

More importantly, in the context of the whole paragraph, it is Darwin's humble approach to his mentor, Dr. Charles Lyell, after Lyell accepted Darwin's natural selection hypothesis, which Darwin then believes, according to the letter, to be a "morally" required conclusion from those seeking the truth:

Darwin wrote:

<quoted text>You seemed to have worked admirably on the species question; there could not have been a better plan than reading up on the opposite side. I rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting the doctrine of modification in your new edition;* nothing, I am convinced, could be more important for its success. I honour you most sincerely. To have maintained in the position of a master, one side of a question for thirty years, and then deliberately give it up, is a fact to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace. Thank you for criticisms, which, if there be a second edition, I will attend to. I have been thinking that if I am much execrated as an atheist, etc., whether the admission of the doctrine of natural selection could injure your works; but I hope and think not, for as far as I can remember, the virulence of bigotry is expended on the first offender, and those who adopt his views are only pitied as deluded, by the wise and cheerful bigots.

Darwin, Charles, Darwin, Francis, ed., Selected Letters on Evolution and Origin of Species (Courier Dover Publications' 1958 edition), pp. 224-5.

Ya gotta love Christian dishonesty, eh?

[Chess Jurist]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for admitting your ignorance in grammar, but you didn't need to tell us.
It's rather obvious from your clumsy construction and use of double dashes in this grammatically incorrect sentence you composed:
“And, yes, your fascination with -- and reliance on -- dishonesty has already been noted.”
You're an uneducated fool and a childish whiner.

Please provide a reputable source that claims the use of dashes is grammatically incorrect.

I'll wait.

[Chess Jurist]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
If you wish to dispute the contents of any web page, you need to contact the publisher of the page, or the author of the content to which you object - not the forum poster who provided you with the link.

No I don't. I merely need to point out the ignorance of the person relying on the source.

[Chess Jurist]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for admitting your ignorance in grammar....

You're lying again.

[Chess Jurist]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't believe in myths, remember?.....

Please stop lying.

[KJV]

Chess Jurist wrote:

<quoted text>Please provide a reputable source that claims the use of dashes is grammatically incorrect.

I'll wait.

Please wait in silence.

[KJV]

Chess Jurist wrote:

<quoted text>Please stop lying.

Yes stand up!

[Chess Jurist]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Please wait in silence.

More childish nonsense from a thief.

[Chess Jurist]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes stand up!

More nonsense from a thief.

[Khatru]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
In other words, you don't trust Wikipedia, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Discover Magazine, Scientific American, rsm journals, The Chicago Tribune, etc (those are where most of my posts come from).
What sources support YOU? "Khatru", "Khatru", and "Khatru" ? Yee? LOl - that's what I thought. In other words, you have nothing.

The fact that you believe in talking snakes and donkeys tells me all I need to know about you.

I notice how you didn't deny my statement that you think genocide is good. That also tells me a lot about you.

[Khatru]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
"From time to time sceptics have used these verses to ridicule the accuracy of the Bible by claiming that, if one uses the figures stated, the circumference of the vessel divided by its diameter gives 3.0, instead of the value pi π, 3.14159…).1"
"Closer examination shows there are at least two possible explanations.
The first concerns the meaning of the word cubit, and how it would have been used in measuring the vessel. A cubit was the length of a man’s forearm from the elbow to the extended fingertips. The Hebrew cubit was about 45 centimetres (18 inches). It is obvious that a man's forearm does not readily lend itself to the measurement of fractions of a forearm. In the Bible half a cubit is mentioned several times, but there is no mention of a third part of a cubit or a fourth part of a cubit, even though these fractions of ‘a third part’ and ‘a fourth part’ were used in volume and weight measurements.2 It therefore seems highly probable that any measurement of more than half a cubit would have been counted as a full cubit, and any measurement of less than half a cubit would have been rounded down to the nearest full cubit.
From 1 Kings 7:23 (‘a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about’), it appears that the circumference was measured with ‘a line’, i.e. a piece of string or cord on which the distance was marked, and this length would then have been measured off in cubits by the measurer, using his own or someone else’s forearm, or possibly a cubit-long rod. Similarly the diameter would have been marked on a line and ‘cubitized’ in the same way.
If the actual diameter was 9.65 cubits, for example, this would have been reckoned as 10 cubits. The actual circumference would then have been 30.32 cubits. This would have been reckoned as 30 cubits (9.6 cubits diameter gives 30.14 circumference, and so on). The ratio of true circumference to true diameter would then have been 30.32÷ 9.65 = 3.14, the true value for pi, even though the measured value (i.e. to the nearest cubit) was 30 ÷ 10 = 3."

The Bible gives the ratio for Pi as three.

Your cut and paste job is nothing more than the apologetic ramblings of a xtian who feels the need to provide his fumbling interpretation in an attempt to correct the error in the Bible.

Whoever wrote the Ahmes Papyrus, around 1650 BCE, used an approximation for Pi that was around 256/81, or about 3.16 and
Archimedes (287-212 BCE) calculated Pi to be a number between 223/71 and 22/7, or 3.1408 and 3.1429

Given the alleged perfection of the bible you'd have thought that the god of the OT would have done better than man.