Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2019 21:29:48 GMT -5
"Gratu; About the author of your post, Gary DeMar" Eventually, I would think for your own sake and writer's cramp, the atheist haters of "creationists" and "creation sites" will realize that I do not look at the messenger. I look at the message. So all the ad hominem practiced on here against "authors" (even Hovind) is a waste of your time except if others want to be steered away by ad hominem, which is probably the case for some visiting 2x2s who have not yet learned that we ALL have faults, but God uses many faulty people to pass on His message to other faulty people. I doubt that the non-never-2x2 visitors pay any attention to the 'kill the messenger' ploys of the average poster on this board while their motes are sticking out of their own eyes in full view of anyone looking at them. The messenger is not the issue. It is the message. Looking at the messenger and all of the claims they make is a good way to evaluate the accuracy of their message. When institutions like Liberty University speak out against the claims of the people whose links you post it is safe to assume what they are posting is far beyond the pale. "Looking at the messenger and all of the claims they make is a good way to evaluate the accuracy of their message. " It is obvious your highest 'authority' is human - i.e., the word of man. So what would anyone expect from you but a nose being led around by whatever voice of man you have made your highest authority. That practice leaves you confined by the popular human opinions, which is HARDLY "accuracy" by any stretch of imagination.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2019 21:33:01 GMT -5
A quick look at the link and the first item I noticed: April 3, 2016 from Answers Magazine Hardly a month passes without new reports of “soft tissue” discovered in fossils. Could this material last millions of years?The fact that this is still being presented as "proof" of a young earth brings a need for skepticism to the entire post. No mention of the chemical solution that explains the soft tissue. It is fraudulent reporting. Ya, right - that's a likely story for an atheist to concoct - we believers all know that to the atheists we tell nothing but 'lies'. And of course atheists tell nothing but 'truth'. And THAT is compounded by the fact that the atheists on this board were all well trained by workers teaching them nothing but lies that they called "the Truth" and condemned all Biblical truth held in other churches as "lies." You are doing a fine job of confirming God's word that foretold of you thousands of years before you showed up. The fact is that soft tissue found in dinosaur bones was not needed to prove a young creation. The failures and buried impossibilities contained in the theory of evolution left no other alternative than creation. And a simple reading of Genesis shows a young creation, not to mention the evidence such as present comets that could not last longer than 100,000 years - and on and on the scientific evidence goes and grows as more scientific discoveries are made year after year. So soft tissue found in dinosaur bones is just another such discovery, not at all held out by believers as THE proof of creation. Believers do not need more than the ancient text of Scripture to prove to them that creation is true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2019 23:02:39 GMT -5
"Gratu; About the author of your post, Gary DeMar" Eventually, I would think for your own sake and writer's cramp, the atheist haters of "creationists" and "creation sites" will realize that I do not look at the messenger. I look at the message. So all the ad hominem practiced on here against "authors" (even Hovind) is a waste of your time except if others want to be steered away by ad hominem, which is probably the case for some visiting 2x2s who have not yet learned that we ALL have faults, but God uses many faulty people to pass on His message to other faulty people. I doubt that the non-never-2x2 visitors pay any attention to the 'kill the messenger' ploys of the average poster on this board while their motes are sticking out of their own eyes in full view of anyone looking at them. Well that does explain a lot!
If you pay no attention to the integrity of the "messenger" -it is no wonder that you fall for any snake oil salesman who comes down the pike! "If you pay no attention to the integrity of the "messenger" -it is no wonder that you fall for any snake oil salesman who comes down the pike! " THAT is taught to 2x2s so frequently that it becomes THE 2x2 way of life - while the observer ignores his/her own 'integrity.' I am quite aware that YOU think the Bible is "myth." And THAT is your problem, not mine. I also looked at your messages and compared them to Scripture - but not so frequently these days because your messages have been consistently found greatly wanting in comparison to Scripture. THAT is why I need no one opening up your closet doors for me to see your 'integrity' either. I had to deal with my own 'integrity' long before I could deal with anyone else's 'integrity.' And the ONLY integrity I possess is that which has been imputed to me by God - so I am no better than anyone else on this planet. So, I look at the message, not the messenger. And for me that way of life replaced the old 2x2 'integrity - watch' LONG ago. So I could not care less what skeletons you have tucked away in your closet especially when I have seen your messages piled high one atop the other all falling flat as soon as they are compared to Scripture. I quit listening to any of your messages ages ago. And this is not the first time that I have quit even trying to reply to your messages.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 11, 2019 5:49:25 GMT -5
The messenger is not the issue. It is the message. Looking at the messenger and all of the claims they make is a good way to evaluate the accuracy of their message. When institutions like Liberty University speak out against the claims of the people whose links you post it is safe to assume what they are posting is far beyond the pale. "Looking at the messenger and all of the claims they make is a good way to evaluate the accuracy of their message. " It is obvious your highest 'authority' is human - i.e., the word of man. So what would anyone expect from you but a nose being led around by whatever voice of man you have made your highest authority. That practice leaves you confined by the popular human opinions, which is HARDLY "accuracy" by any stretch of imagination. No, it is not the voice of any one man but the claims that can be supported by data. You like the opinions and beliefs of the creationists you post and do not care about their integrity ot the data they use to support their claims. That is why you end up trying to understand and support a theory like Lisle's ASC beliefs. Empirical evidence is a good standard.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 11, 2019 6:56:12 GMT -5
A quick look at the link and the first item I noticed: April 3, 2016 from Answers Magazine Hardly a month passes without new reports of “soft tissue” discovered in fossils. Could this material last millions of years?The fact that this is still being presented as "proof" of a young earth brings a need for skepticism to the entire post. No mention of the chemical solution that explains the soft tissue. It is fraudulent reporting. Ya, right - that's a likely story for an atheist to concoct - we believers all know that to the atheists we tell nothing but 'lies'. And of course atheists tell nothing but 'truth'. And THAT is compounded by the fact that the atheists on this board were all well trained by workers teaching them nothing but lies that they called "the Truth" and condemned all Biblical truth held in other churches as "lies." You are doing a fine job of confirming God's word that foretold of you thousands of years before you showed up. You spend a lot of time condemning the workers while your behavior is a perfect reflection of their operational procedures. It is good that the soft tissue explanation found in the creationist sites is not needed after it can be explained and supported by actual data that shows how the proteins can be stabilized by the iron found within the bones. But rather than publish the information it is simply ignored and the old original finds are repeated over and over an attempt to support an otherwise unsupported theory. The chemical explanation of how proteins can survive for hundreds of millions of years just removes yet another claim from the young earther's tool bag. I wonder how many years they will continue to make the claim? And of course you bring up the comets without mentioning that there are now images of the icy bodies that were first theorized, then observed from earth, and now imaged by vehicles in the region of the objects.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2019 8:04:05 GMT -5
"You spend a lot of time condemning the workers while your behavior is a perfect reflection of their operational procedures."
You are not listening to anything I say and it is YOU and a couple others that have judged that I have condemned workers in spite of the fact that I have not condemned even YOU. I have stated that condemning is GOD"S job, but of course you can't judge God if He doesn't exist, so who else could you pass your judgement upon but believers. And that says nothing of repeating the fact that even with "2x2" in the thread titles, my first threads were buried out of sight in the PRIVATE "freak's" bin for supposedly not having anything to do with 2x2ism.
"I wonder how many years they will continue to make the claim?"
I had no doubt that evolutionists would come up with SOMETHING that would cover billions of years and still yield soft tissue in bones. And Dr. Lisle makes the point that believers also have their "rescuing" methods for things they have no ready answer for. And all these things point up is that you and I hold totally opposed beliefs - surprise, surprise, huh.
"And of course you bring up the comets without mentioning that there are now images of the icy bodies that were first theorized, then observed from earth, and now imaged by vehicles in the region of the objects."
Of course there would be icy bodies if anything way out there, but are they "comets?" - if the shuttle cracked open even as close as the top of earth's atmosphere the contents would freeze. It's about as no-brainer as your car's heater running on a winter drive through the Rockies.
So carry on babbling while I again stop wasting my time pushing keys in response to yours too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2019 8:33:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 11, 2019 10:08:22 GMT -5
I thought that perhaps some who follow this thread would appreciate this newly published paper by ANNETTE YOSHIKO REED @ McMaster University titled: ABRAHAM AS CHALDEAN SCIENTIST AND FATHER OF THE JEWS: JOSEPHUS, ANT. 1.154-168, AND THE GRECO-ROMAN DISCOURSE ABOUT ASTRONOMY/ASTROLOGY* Wherein she analyzes Josephus’ approach to Abraham and astronomy/astrology in Ant 1.154-168. This retelling of Genesis 12 describes Abraham as inferring the one-ness of God from the irregularity of the stars, thereby implying his rejection of “the Chaldean science” for Jewish monotheism. Soon after, however, Josephus posits that the patriarch transmitted astronomy/astrology to Egypt, appealing to the positive connotations of this art for apologetic aims. Towards explaining the tension between these two traditions, she first maps the range of early Jewish traditions about Abraham and the stars, and then consider the Hellenistic discourse about astral wisdom as the domain of ancient “barbarian” nations, as it shaped Hellenistic Jewish traditions that celebrate Abraham’s astronomical/astrological skill. She then concludes with Josephus’ own cultural context, proposing that the attitudes towards astronomy/astrology among his Roman contemporaries may help to account for the ambivalence in his characterization of Abraham as both Chaldean scientist and father of the Jews. Hope this helps in these discussions. www.academia.edu/243907/_Abraham_as_Chaldean_Scientist_and_Father_of_the_Jews_Josephus_Ant._1.154_168_and_the_Greco-Roman_Discourse_about_Astronomy_Astrology_?email_work_card=view-paper
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2019 12:09:27 GMT -5
The linked article refers to Josephus. And that needs his works to even see what the author is talking about - Genesis 12 contains diddly regarding "astronomy/astrology". And Josephus is Jewish history written for Roman leadership, not Scripture.
So while I do have the works of Josephus in my library, my library is in storage and it will be far more than I think it is worth to dig those out to check out this author's work. But reading just the first paragraph of summary seems to put upon Abraham a current idea of "scientist" read back upon Josephus. The author's attribution of "scientist" on Abraham may be of some value to current day astrologers, but it is foriegn to everything I have sudied - a completely out of the blue concept to Biblical history - and Josephus was not a Biblical historian at that.
Sorry, but this is the best I can do in the available time with regard to your information from the perspective of a believer.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 11, 2019 12:15:57 GMT -5
"Gratu; About the author of your post, Gary DeMar" Eventually, I would think for your own sake and writer's cramp, the atheist haters of "creationists" and "creation sites" will realize that I do not look at the messenger. I look at the message. So all the ad hominem practiced on here against "authors" (even Hovind) is a waste of your time except if others want to be steered away by ad hominem, which is probably the case for some visiting 2x2s who have not yet learned that we ALL have faults, but God uses many faulty people to pass on His message to other faulty people. I doubt that the non-never-2x2 visitors pay any attention to the 'kill the messenger' ploys of the average poster on this board while their motes are sticking out of their own eyes in full view of anyone looking at them. If you don't look at the messenger, how can you discern if what he/she writes is on the up and up? True? If they are known for being dishonest, how can you even begin to trust what they try to sell?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 11, 2019 12:19:08 GMT -5
So where does your oil come from? There are very accurate ways to date things now and we are getting better and better at it. We know for a fact that the earth is not 6000 years old. It's not a question anymore.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 11, 2019 12:19:56 GMT -5
AHH - no tricks this time so I can full quote it without copying the tricks. And I full quote it just to say thank you for more heads-up on messengers whose messages seem both Biblical and accurate to me. And to answer your question, I find the people whose messages I post on here very much like I find churches that teach the Bible - by reading or watching their online messages and comparing their messages with Scripture. but I'll not bother using the technical term for the procedure because it may well be a foiegn language to you. I am trying to imagine the technical terms. Hermeneutics comes to mind. Or could it be epistemology? I'll bet it is semiotics. Probably not skepticism. Semantics? Maybe linguistics? All right, I give up. What is the technical term? I can spend the rest of the week trying to comprehend it. Well at least you kept him busy looking up all those big words....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2019 12:20:19 GMT -5
"If you don't look at the messenger, how can you discern if what he/she writes is on the up and up? True? If they are known for being dishonest, how can you even begin to trust what they try to sell?"
The answer has already been provided - I compare the message to Scripture. And I compare the messenger, anything I know of him or her, with Scripture - always finding the messenger just as faulty as I am.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 11, 2019 12:22:03 GMT -5
The messenger is not the issue. It is the message. Looking at the messenger and all of the claims they make is a good way to evaluate the accuracy of their message. When institutions like Liberty University speak out against the claims of the people whose links you post it is safe to assume what they are posting is far beyond the pale. "Looking at the messenger and all of the claims they make is a good way to evaluate the accuracy of their message. " It is obvious your highest 'authority' is human - i.e., the word of man. So what would anyone expect from you but a nose being led around by whatever voice of man you have made your highest authority. That practice leaves you confined by the popular human opinions, which is HARDLY "accuracy" by any stretch of imagination. And, you are stuck with dark ages beliefs, because your 'highest authority' hasn't written anything in 2000 years....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2019 12:27:34 GMT -5
"And, you are stuck with dark ages beliefs, because your 'highest authority' hasn't written anything in 2000 years...."
Sorry - I am busy today and only squeeze in this reply;
For one who has rejected the Bible you are the one stuck on mans word as your highest authority. And of course you would reject the Bibles revelation 2000 years ago that it would have NOTHING added in the next 2000 years or whatever time this ball of wax continues by God's grace.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 11, 2019 12:27:51 GMT -5
The linked article refers to Josephus. And that needs his works to even see what the author is talking about - Genesis 12 contains diddly regarding "astronomy/astrology". And Josephus is Jewish history written for Roman leadership, not Scripture. So while I do have the works of Josephus in my library, my library is in storage and it will be far more than I think it is worth to dig those out to check out this author's work. But reading just the first paragraph of summary seems to put upon Abraham a current idea of "scientist" read back upon Josephus. The author's attribution of "scientist" on Abraham may be of some value to current day astrologers, but it is foriegn to everything I have sudied - a completely out of the blue concept to Biblical history - and Josephus was not a Biblical historian at that. Sorry, but this is the best I can do in the available time with regard to your information from the perspective of a believer. Oh boy here we go again. I guess you need help with your reading comprehension. Or, you just read to fast to see "This retelling of Genesis 12." Where I come from a retelling doesn't mean it will copy the original completely. A retelling can mean that old Joe was trying to explain what he took from Genesis 12 and explain it. Much like the workers do. And hey if you need help with the reading comprehension I think some of the followers of this thread might be or were remedial teachers and might could use a few extra shekels to help ends met.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 11, 2019 12:33:37 GMT -5
"And, you are stuck with dark ages beliefs, because your 'highest authority' hasn't written anything in 2000 years...." Sorry - I am busy today and only squeeze in this reply; For one who has rejected the Bible you are the one stuck on mans word as your highest authority. And of course you would reject the Bibles revelation 2000 years ago that it would have NOTHING added in the next 2000 years or whatever time this ball of wax continues by God's grace. When we progress, finding out how the natural world works and it contradicts a 2000 year old document, then yes. I do take man's word as the highest authority on the subject. If you don't it explains why you believe all kinds of things we've learned since the last time your God did dictation. I think you would agree that God made you with a brain to think. If not, don't continue reading my thought. If God gave us brains to think for ourselves and explore the natural world he created for us, then why do you refuse to listen to what scientists have found out that have explored the world your God presumably gave us to explore and find out about? Are you sure that God is happy with people that don't use the brain he gave them?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 11, 2019 14:44:56 GMT -5
"You spend a lot of time condemning the workers while your behavior is a perfect reflection of their operational procedures." You are not listening to anything I say and it is YOU and a couple others that have judged that I have condemned workers in spite of the fact that I have not condemned even YOU. I have stated that condemning is GOD"S job, but of course you can't judge God if He doesn't exist, so who else could you pass your judgement upon but believers. And that says nothing of repeating the fact that even with "2x2" in the thread titles, my first threads were buried out of sight in the PRIVATE "freak's" bin for supposedly not having anything to do with 2x2ism. This is simply BS. They were in plain sight of the registered users. Have you information that a single unregistered person has ever visited one link you posted? When you claim you have not condemned you are carefully parsing words. And again, your lack of understanding is showing. No evolutionist has ever claimed a billion years. That is right from a creationist site. There was no ready answer because it was only recently discovered and rather than take the creationist path and make something up (like a young earth) real scientists look for additional data (many examples of 'soft tissue' were discovered once it was discovered where to look) and then some theories as to how it could exist were tested. Finally a solution was found that supports the theory. Very different that throwing in a young earth as a solution. Until they were confirmed creationists have denied their existence. And my car's heater does run on a drive through the rockies. It is one of the benefits of a less than 100% efficient gas powered vehicle. And yet you have presented nothing to support your (creationists) claims. Here is a pop quiz - Without looking it up can you describe the 'soft tissue' that you claim supports the young earth theory? What would it feel like if you held it in your hand?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 11, 2019 15:31:56 GMT -5
Well that does explain a lot!
If you pay no attention to the integrity of the "messenger" -it is no wonder that you fall for any snake oil salesman who comes down the pike! "If you pay no attention to the integrity of the "messenger" -it is no wonder that you fall for any snake oil salesman who comes down the pike! "
THAT is taught to 2x2s so frequently that it becomes THE 2x2 way of life - while the observer ignores his/her own 'integrity.' I am quite aware that YOU think the Bible is "myth." And THAT is your problem, not mine. I also looked at your messages and compared them to Scripture - but not so frequently these days because your messages have been consistently found greatly wanting in comparison to Scripture. THAT is why I need no one opening up your closet doors for me to see your 'integrity' either I had to deal with my own 'integrity' long before I could deal with anyone else's 'integrity.' And the ONLY integrity I possess is that which has been imputed to me by God - so I am no better than anyone else on this planet. So, I look at the message, not the messenger. And for me that way of life replaced the old 2x2 'integrity - watch' LONG ago. So I could not care less what skeletons you have tucked away in your closet especially when I have seen your messages piled high one atop the other all falling flat as soon as they are compared to Scripture. I quit listening to any of your messages ages ago. And this is not the first time that I have quit even trying to reply to your messages. Gratu, -Perhaps you need a lesson of the meaning of the word Integrity Integrity is the practice of being honest and showing a consistent and uncompromising adherence to strong moral and ethical principles and values.
In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can stand in opposition to hypocrisy, in that judging with the standards of integrity involves regarding internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding within themselves apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs. The word integrity evolved from the Latin adjective integer, meaning whole or complete. In this context, integrity is the inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from qualities such as honesty and consistency of character. As such, one may judge that other s "have integrity" to the extent that they act according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold. In ethics In ethics when discussing behavior and morality, an individual is said to possess the virtue of integrity if the individual's actions are based upon an internally consistent framework of principles. These principles should uniformly adhere to sound logical axioms or postulates. One can describe a person as having ethical integrity to the extent that the individual's actions, beliefs, methods, measures and principles all derive from a single core group of values. An individual must therefore be flexible and willing to adjust these values to maintain consistency when these values are challenged—such as when an expected test result is not congruent with all observed outcomes.
Because such flexibility is a form of accountability, it is regarded as a moral responsibility as well as a virtue. An individual's value system provides a framework within which the individual acts in ways which are consistent and expected. Integrity can be seen as the state or condition of having such a framework, and acting congruently within the given framework. One essential aspect of a consistent framework is its avoidance of any unwarranted (arbitrary) exceptions for a particular person or group—especially the person or group that holds the framework. In law, this principle of universal application requires that even those in positions of official power be subject to the same laws as pertain to their fellow citizens. In personal ethics, this principle requires that one should not act according to any rule that one would not wish to see universally followed. For example, one should not steal unless one would want to live in a world in which everyone was a thief. The philosopher Immanuel Kant formally described the principle of universal application in his categorical imperative.
The concept of integrity implies a wholeness, a comprehensive corpus of beliefs, often referred to as a worldview. This concept of wholeness emphasizes honesty and authenticity, requiring that one act at all times in accordance with the individual's chosen worldview. from wikiGratu, your posts, -using derogatory remarks about everyone & everything with which you don't agree, -betray the principles of Jesus you claim to follow.
You also seem unable to have the flexibility to change when confronted with a result which is not consistent with what you believe.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 11, 2019 15:47:56 GMT -5
The presenter of this video is just one more charlatan of the pseudo-scientific intelligent design movement. Phillip E. Johnson Legal academic Phillip E. Johnson is a retired UC Berkeley law professor , opponent of evolutionary science, co-founder of the pseudo-scientific intelligent design movement, author of the "Wedge strategy" and co-founder of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2019 16:51:10 GMT -5
“Have you information that a single unregistered person has ever visited one link you posted? “
This too was answered previously, but here we go again on it – REPEAT2 (at least) - Yes.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 11, 2019 19:15:01 GMT -5
“Have you information that a single unregistered person has ever visited one link you posted? “ This too was answered previously, but here we go again on it – REPEAT2 (at least) - Yes. And that information is? Do you have the IP of that reader? Do you have access to the YouTube servers? Someone told you they viewed a link? Just wondering.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2019 20:07:19 GMT -5
“And that information is? Do you have the IP of that reader? Do you have access to the YouTube servers? Someone told you they viewed a link? “
That information "is," yes. I don't need the IP of any “reader,” but we know you do. Yes. Yes.
Is that enough of a bite on your dumb bait to warrant another trick out of you? Maybe you should team up with intelchips to see if I am as dumb as he portrays me in his above post - imagine a dumb believer stupid enough to bite on a suggestion to pay some former 2x2 atheist on this board to get "remedial" stuff for dumbness and if gratu is stupid enough to bite on that, then the two of you could surely trick what you want out of him by collaboration of your collective atheistic - oh ya, and 'scientific' wisdom that should be massive between the two of you.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 11, 2019 21:05:53 GMT -5
“And that information is? Do you have the IP of that reader? Do you have access to the YouTube servers? Someone told you they viewed a link? “ That information "is," yes. I don't need the IP of any “reader,” but we know you do. Yes. Yes. Is that enough of a bite on your dumb bait to warrant another trick out of you? Maybe you should team up with intelchips to see if I am as dumb as he portrays me in his above post - imagine a dumb believer stupid enough to bite on a suggestion to pay some former 2x2 atheist on this board to get "remedial" stuff for dumbness and if gratu is stupid enough to bite on that, then the two of you could surely trick what you want out of him by collaboration of your collective atheistic - oh ya, and 'scientific' wisdom that should be massive between the two of you. Oh My!
Gratu, Have you managed to get your foot unwound from your mouth yet?
I do hope so, -it will be hard to sleep in that kind of position!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2019 21:46:33 GMT -5
“Have you managed to get your foot unwound from your mouth yet? “
Nope I'm just so dumb according to intelchips I gotta pay a former 2x2 atheist on here to gain 'remedial' stuff to fix my dumbness. Maybe you could team up with he and rational – now THERE would surely be a god-level of atheist wisdom, I'm sure. Oh, my, my, my, I had no idea it was so serious until you chiped in your 'foot-in-mouth' wisdom. Oh, Woe is me.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 11, 2019 22:00:20 GMT -5
“Have you managed to get your foot unwound from your mouth yet? “ Nope I'm just so dumb according to intelchips I gotta pay a former 2x2 atheist on here to gain 'remedial' stuff to fix my dumbness. Maybe you could team up with he and rational – now THERE would surely be a god-level of atheist wisdom, I'm sure. Oh, my, my, my, I had no idea it was so serious until you chiped in your 'foot-in-mouth' wisdom. Oh, Woe is me. “Have you managed to get your foot unwound from your mouth yet? “ Nope I'm just so dumb according to intelchips I gotta pay a former 2x2 atheist on here to gain 'remedial' stuff to fix my dumbness. Maybe you could team up with he and rational – now THERE would surely be a god-level of atheist wisdom, I'm sure. Oh, my, my, my, I had no idea it was so serious until you chiped in your 'hook-in-mouth' disease wisdom. Woe is me. Ah, --poor gratu.. But don't despair you are lost yet \there is still time for you to learn.
Look! I'm still learning a lot at age 87!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2019 22:15:39 GMT -5
“Look! I'm still learning a lot at age 87! “
Oh – WOW!!! "learning a lot" at that age I'm SOOOO impressed and happy for you –-
I live on a lot but never learned a lot. And now i fear it is a lot too lot – ah late. I need a three pack of former 2x2 atheists from this bored to charge me fees to try to fix me dumbness. I am so embarrassed by all this dumbness showing up in front of invited visitors – alas, foot-in-mouth and all..
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 11, 2019 22:57:30 GMT -5
“Look! I'm still learning a lot at age 87! “ Oh – WOW!!! "learning a lot" at that age I'm SOOOO impressed and happy for you –- I live on a lot but never learned a lot. And now i fear it is a lot too lot – ah late. I need a three pack of former 2x2 atheists from this bored to charge me fees to try to fix me dumbness. I am so embarrassed by all this dumbness showing up in front of invited visitors – alas, foot-in-mouth and all.. Maybe you just need a three-pack cups of black coffee?
Sounds like you have maybe had a one too many six-packs of something very strong.
|
|