Evidence for God from Science

"Mainstream" ok. What do you call the ones who find chariots of the gods and wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea? Slipstream ardhaeologists?

Mainstream:
noun
1.
the ideas, attitudes, or activities that are regarded as normal or conventional; the dominant trend in opinion, fashion, or the arts.

I know that english is your second language but the things you tend to focus on are, at times, well...just not important.

Anyone reading what was posted without any ulterior motives would read that as meaning:

Archaeologists that are NOT known for "wild and fanciful ideas".

Audie,
It seems clear to me that you are looking for anything to discredit ANY post that deals with things that you disagree with and when there is nothing in that post, you nit-pick and "make something up" ( picking on the term mainstream for example).

I don't think that it will be tolerated much longer, I am sorry to say.

PaulSacramento wrote:

"Mainstream" ok. What do you call the ones who find chariots of the gods and wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea? Slipstream ardhaeologists?

Mainstream:
noun
1.
the ideas, attitudes, or activities that are regarded as normal or conventional; the dominant trend in opinion, fashion, or the arts.

I know that english is your second language but the things you tend to focus on are, at times, well...just not important.

Anyone reading what was posted without any ulterior motives would read that as meaning:

Archaeologists that are NOT known for "wild and fanciful ideas".

Audie,
It seems clear to me that you are looking for anything to discredit ANY post that deals with things that you disagree with and when there is nothing in that post, you nit-pick and "make something up" ( picking on the term mainstream for example).

I don't think that it will be tolerated much longer, I am sorry to say.

Random chance produce her, just an accident in a universe destined to fail!

Nothing Audie says has value because she does not value what others say or actually takes the time to read what others are saying...such militant atheist are valueless folks anyways because such

...are always and
-
-
-

PaulSacramento wrote:

"Mainstream" ok. What do you call the ones who find chariots of the gods and wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea? Slipstream ardhaeologists?

Mainstream:
noun
1.
the ideas, attitudes, or activities that are regarded as normal or conventional; the dominant trend in opinion, fashion, or the arts.

I know that english is your second language but the things you tend to focus on are, at times, well...just not important.

Anyone reading what was posted without any ulterior motives would read that as meaning:

Archaeologists that are NOT known for "wild and fanciful ideas".

Audie,
It seems clear to me that you are looking for anything to discredit ANY post that deals with things that you disagree with and when there is nothing in that post, you nit-pick and "make something up" ( picking on the term mainstream for example).

I don't think that it will be tolerated much longer, I am sorry to say.

Sure there was a tinge of snarkulation in what I said. There is a lot of serious bs that goes on under the heading of "biblical archaeology" as well as very good work.

I've read enough archaeology to know that archaeologists dont refer to themselves as "mainstream" . I do see the word used a lot, "mainstream science", say in the context of
woo woo sites trying to say they are out ahead of stodgy ol' mainstreamers. You cant tell me you've not seen that.

Its a red flag when someone does say "mainstream" tho the comment I made doesnt seem to suit the article itself, which does seem to make sense and was in that way inappropriate.

Now, another article, one you posted from a science fiction writer, the author made some outlandishly false comments about the nature of science and ToE in particular. Things you support.

I challenged them, you walked away.

You have people who dont know much science. Your tacit acceptance or overt promotion of falsehoods or other nonsense is irresponsible, unconsionable even.

In the mote / log dept, if your concern is for quality here, what are you doing?

Or bw, with the ugly things he is saying?


But ok, ir you want all amen-amen sycophants, its easy to arrange. You and bw have both seen fit to threaten me now. Bw, I told him I would never respond to anything he says, so now he is rather obviously trying with calumny to provoke a response, likely enough for an excuse to carry out his threat.

Why bother? If you guys want amen-amen sycophants and a locked garden gate, go for it.

Googling "calumny"...

Audie, you don't seem to understand the difference between constructive and educated criticism and insults.
You seem to grasp at irrelevant points in articles and posts that you disagree with BUT are not able to come up with a coherent argument against the actual point being made.
Someone will make the point about the forest being green and you will argue that one of the leaves is red.

I am simply stating that all the moderators are seeing this type or argument for what it is, arguing for arguments sake and it simply will not be tolerated anymore.

It isn't about not being open to critique, it is about not being open to pointless critique.

PaulSacramento wrote:Audie, you don't seem to understand the difference between constructive and educated criticism and insults.
You seem to grasp at irrelevant points in articles and posts that you disagree with BUT are not able to come up with a coherent argument against the actual point being made.
Someone will make the point about the forest being green and you will argue that one of the leaves is red.

I am simply stating that all the moderators are seeing this type or argument for what it is, arguing for arguments sake and it simply will not be tolerated anymore.

It isn't about not being open to critique, it is about not being open to pointless critique.

What I said about "mainstream" has point, tho not worth saying in that instance, so on refection, I'd not have said it.

I understand the difference just fine.

You seem to grasp at irrelevant points in articles and posts that you disagree with BUT are not able to come up with a coherent argument against the actual point being ma

OH? prease give an example. I've no trouble with that sci fi writers nonsense.
And I consider it grossly irresponsible for anyone to promote / defend such things.

I will watch for signs of pointless critique, and avoid it.

I will buy
It isn't ENTIRELY about not being open to critique,


it is about not being open to pointless critique.

oh?

That sure isnt what your pal is about in his following me about to make pointless
ugly remarks. IF pointless and ill mannered critique is not considered a good thing, you may want to do a tete a tete with the bw, who is being seriously obnoxious.

You sure you, he, or the man behind the tree would find it acceptable if I spoke so to you or he?

PaulSacramento wrote:Audie, you don't seem to understand the difference between constructive and educated criticism and insults.
You seem to grasp at irrelevant points in articles and posts that you disagree with BUT are not able to come up with a coherent argument against the actual point being made.
Someone will make the point about the forest being green and you will argue that one of the leaves is red.
But if there is a red leaf there she has a point.

I am simply stating that all the moderators are seeing this type or argument for what it is, arguing for arguments sake and it simply will not be tolerated anymore.Her and I, we talk, we understand each other. She has to fight. It's all she knows.

It isn't about not being open to critique, it is about not being open to pointless critique

Audie, I love you.

Storyteller wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Audie, you don't seem to understand the difference between constructive and educated criticism and insults.
You seem to grasp at irrelevant points in articles and posts that you disagree with BUT are not able to come up with a coherent argument against the actual point being made.
Someone will make the point about the forest being green and you will argue that one of the leaves is red.
But if there is a red leaf there she has a point.

I am simply stating that all the moderators are seeing this type or argument for what it is, arguing for arguments sake and it simply will not be tolerated anymore.Her and I, we talk, we understand each other. She has to fight. It's all she knows.

It isn't about not being open to critique, it is about not being open to pointless critique

Audie, I love you.

Thanks S.

You just pulled the plug on my anger, and tears.
No fight left in me for this.

Paul, you are all right. Sorry about being so aggressive.

I do take what youve said seriously.

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Audie, you don't seem to understand the difference between constructive and educated criticism and insults.
You seem to grasp at irrelevant points in articles and posts that you disagree with BUT are not able to come up with a coherent argument against the actual point being made.
Someone will make the point about the forest being green and you will argue that one of the leaves is red.
But if there is a red leaf there she has a point.

I am simply stating that all the moderators are seeing this type or argument for what it is, arguing for arguments sake and it simply will not be tolerated anymore.Her and I, we talk, we understand each other. She has to fight. It's all she knows.

It isn't about not being open to critique, it is about not being open to pointless critique

Audie, I love you.

Thanks S.

You just pulled the plug on my anger, and tears.
No fight left in me for this.

Paul, you are all right. Sorry about being so aggressive.

I do take what youve said seriously.

Oh honey...

There is no need to fight, alone, not anymore.

I know how it feels.

I have been where you have been, we have walked together before.

Walk with me again, I'll show you God. But you have to take the chance I will.

Just because there is one red leaf doesn't mean the forest isn't green.
But there is that red leaf, so the forest isn't technically green.
It's perception, shades.

Sometimes, when you hurt, it's hard to believe.
That somehow, that hurt, that pain, matters.

It does matter.

To me, and you.
And God.

If God does not, in fact exist, what do you lose?

And if He does, what then?

The forest is green, with a red leaf, and it's beautiful.

Storyteller wrote:The forest is green, with a red leaf, and it's beautiful.

The leaf is green. You are color blind.

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Audie, you don't seem to understand the difference between constructive and educated criticism and insults.
You seem to grasp at irrelevant points in articles and posts that you disagree with BUT are not able to come up with a coherent argument against the actual point being made.
Someone will make the point about the forest being green and you will argue that one of the leaves is red.
But if there is a red leaf there she has a point.

I am simply stating that all the moderators are seeing this type or argument for what it is, arguing for arguments sake and it simply will not be tolerated anymore.Her and I, we talk, we understand each other. She has to fight. It's all she knows.

It isn't about not being open to critique, it is about not being open to pointless critique

Audie, I love you.

Thanks S.

You just pulled the plug on my anger, and tears.
No fight left in me for this.

Paul, you are all right. Sorry about being so aggressive.

I do take what youve said seriously.

That is all I ever ask Audie.
I don't need you to agree nor would I want you to if deep down you didn't, BUT I do need you to be more respective of the views of others, especially when you disagree.
And this goes for ALL OF US, not just Audie of course.
We are ALL guilty of this and we ALL can do better.