Summations Only

I meant TAQ not Taz. Sorry.

One cannot excape the feeling that resident evolutionists do not understand, or allow for creation science talk. Your bully pulpit site owner simply bans it from debate so as for it to stand or fall on it's own merits.As for plain English, at times some you vindictive counterparts don't have it quite right either. When it comes to the meaning of the scientific term, evidence, you simply deny it all, including it's proper meaning.

There is no such thing as 'Creation Science' and there could never be such a thing; it is an oxymoron.

LoL. If you think the alleged prophets of Dephi or anything supporting the existence of a Greek god is supported by evidence, you haven't a clue as to the mountains of evidence pertaining to the Biblical record and how scanty little there is to the Greek gods in comparison.

No YOU havent got a clue, the mountain of evidence pertaining to the oracle of Delphi and their prophecies COMING TRUE out ways your whole bible, And that evidence does not only come from the Greeks other civilizations also wrote about the oracle of Delphi and their prophecies. So the god Apollo MUST BE REAL so worship him and maby you will see the Elisian fields or be dammed to Tartarushereuis a small list List of oracular statements from Delphi - Wikipedia

Wow. There I was, being all nice and reasonable and polite, and I still get jeered from Buz? I actually ask your opinion rather than just lambasting you, and you still don't like it? Huh. Why are you making this about you? We aren't lacking you, Buz. We're lacking Creationists in general. Are you suggesting that allowing you, personally, re-admittance into the science forums would help us retain more Creationists?

LOL. Nothing whatsoever pertaining to our times as is with the Biblical record, such as the 2nd advent of the nation of Israel after 19 centuries of dispersion, etc. For that matter nothing near as imerically substantiated as the Biblical record.

You keep making that claim Buz but never provide the Chapter and Verse so we can see if there is such a prophecy and if it is in any way fulfilled.

All of the creationists have gone because most of you act like jerks toward creationists. Why would any of us want to stick around and be treated like that? Most of all, we get tired of reading all of your guys crap. If I told you want I wanted to do to some of you guys after reading your posts, it would not only get me banned but would result in cops banging on my front door.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Once again you show your true face: hatred and violence.

I don't know how serious you are, but I did want to point out that one former poster here did manage to get himself arrested after repeatedly threatening people over the internet.

Rahvin wrote a reasoned, dispassionate post describing one specific type of error that you frequently make here. He then asked you to suggest how this problem might be addressed.You could have denied that he accurately described your posting history.You could have asked him to provide more examples if you were unsure what he was talking about.You could have acknowledged that you understood the problem and suggested possible solutions to it.You did none of those things. You didn't even acknowledge the specific problem he addressed. Instead, you trotted out the tired old martyr routine, the same thing that you seem to say every time someone comments on your apparent inability to understand much of the language used here.This strongly suggests that you didn't understand the points that Rahvin made. It would be quite simple for you to dispel this suggestion; respond to the points that Rahvin actually made, either in one of the fashions I mention above, or in some other way that might occur to you. But the worst thing to do to try to dispel the notion is talk about completely different issues that have nothing to do with what Rahvin wrote.

Being a scientist or not being a scientist is quite irrelevant here; some are, and some are not (such as you and I). The issue here is what understanding of your own of the science you yourself can bring to the table. Unfortunately, your overt reliance on typical lawyer tactics do not and will not get you very far on this type of forum. That is the usual problem with advocates of pseudoscience: they think victory is achieved through swaying the lowest common denominator to their side at all costs. That's not scientific debate; that's just puerile politics. How sad for you, since juries seldom argue back.

That's not what WK is saying. What he is saying is that it is useless for you to throw out snippets of scientific papers which you do not understand. It matters not a jot whether you are a qualified or practising scientist. It doesn't matter if you are an educated layperson. What matters is that you understand what you are talking about.If you understand the subject then fine, go ahead and talk about it. If you understand what the scientists are saying, then go ahead and quote them. But the reality is that you don't understand the topics you bring up. Then you try to debate them with people who do understand those topics. This is a waste of time. This isn't a jury trial though. You have to debate for yourself. If you are incapable of forming a coherent position, then the proper thing to do is either a) educate yourself until you do have an understanding or b) stop talking and leave science to those who understand it. After all, how are you meant to know whether the papers you cite genuinely support your position or not if you don't understand them?If you can't be bothered to educate yourself to the necessary level, that's fine. It's a tough subject after all and it would require a lot of effort. I certainly can't be bothered to put in the effort that would be required to completely understand this CRISPR system, it simply doesn't interest me that much. But then I don't go around telling the experts that they're wrong. I keep silent on topics that I don't understand. All that WK is telling is that you should raise your game so that you understand what you're talking about. If you cannot or will not do this, then silence is the only appropriate alternative. I can see how that would be annoying. I sympathise, genuinely. I understand that it must be frustrating to you. However, your frustration does not change the fact that you are pontificating on a subject that you do not understand. We see a lot of people, mainly creationists, on this board trying to discuss subjects that they plainly have no grasp of. Guess what? That's kind of annoying as well.Mutate and Survive

The Delphi Oracles ,as I alleged were no-where near as imperical or relative to our end times as the mountains of imperical Biblical prophesies. A comparison would be a Modle T Ford to a modern Alexis, etc. Many of the Delphi prophecies failed. Not so with those of the Bible, though the likes of Jar, et al fail to acknowledge any of them. To do so would make them, you, et al accountable to a higer power, i.e. the Biblical existing creator-god, Jehovah.

quote:

---

Croesus, king of Lydia beginning in 560 B.C., tested the oracles of the world to discover which gave the most accurate prophecies. He sent out emissaries to seven sites who were all to ask the oracles on the same day what the king was doing at that very moment. Croesus proclaimed the oracle at Delphi to be the most accurate, who correctly reported that the king was making a lamb-and-tortoise stew, and so he graced her with a magnitude of precious gifts.[8] He then consulted Delphi before attacking Persia, and according to Herodotus was advised, "If you cross the river, a great empire will be destroyed." Believing the response favorable, Croesus attacked, but it was his own empire that ultimately was destroyed by the Persians.

​

She allegedly also proclaimed Socrates to be the wisest man in Greece, to which Socrates said that, if so, this was because he alone was aware of his own ignorance. After this confrontation, Socrates dedicated his life to a search for knowledge that was one of the founding events of western philosophy. He claimed that she was "an essential guide to personal and state development."[9] This Oracle's last recorded response was given in 393 AD, when the emperor Theodosius I ordered pagan temples to cease operation.[citation needed]

​

The oracle's powers were highly sought after and never doubted. Any inconsistencies between prophecies and events were dismissed as failure to correctly interpret the responses, not an error of the oracle.[10] Very often prophecies were worded ambiguously, so as to cover all contingencies - especially so ex post facto. One famous such response to a query about participation in a military campaign was "You will go you will return never in war will you perish". This gives the recipient liberty to place a comma before or after the word "never", thus covering both possible outcomes. Another was the response to the Athenians when the vast army of king Xerxes I was approaching Athens with the intent of razing the city to the ground. "Only the wooden palisades may save you"[citation needed], answered the oracle, probably aware that there was sentiment for sailing to the safety of southern Italy and reestablishing Athens there. Some thought that it was a recommendation to fortify the Acropolis with a wooden fence and make a stand there. Others, Themistocles among them, said the oracle was clearly for fighting at sea, the metaphor intended to mean war ships. Others still insisted that their case was so hopeless that they should board every ship available and flee to Italy, where they would be safe beyond any doubt. In the event, variations of all three interpretations were attempted: some barricaded the Acropolis, the civilian population was evacuated over sea to nearby Salamis Island and to Troizen, and the war fleet fought victoriously at Salamis Bay. Should utter destruction have happened, it could always be claimed that the oracle had called for fleeing to Italy after all.

---