Prophecy for Buzsaw

You know full well that the rules under discussion were proposed by Percy. How then does it follow that your attack was not directed at Percy ?And let me add that firstly you have accepted that you did indeed accuse others of bias on no grounds other than that they did not share your bias. That you have offered no reaon to conclude that such behaviour is not hypocritical. It seems then that your sole objection is that it was pointed out that such behaviour was hypocritical. In short you appear to hold that you should be placed above criticism while feeling quite free to launch unfounded attacks on others who do not share your views.

" But things like 1947 are good evidence for a hardened and unnaturally Atheistic unreasonable evo touting hardened scrutineer of sorts, if he actually opens up that closed minded bonce of bias inquiry "I'll break this down, incase you don't understand English.Things like 1947 are good evidence FOR A hardened unnaturally Atheistic evo.... e.t.c. e.t.c.So HE is then whomever the hardened unnaturally Atheistic... e.t.c. e.t.c. person is. - Anyone who is that way, in itself, and there is no name there called Percy.

That is called evading the question. Well, would you be so kind as too tell us a few of these "answers" it would be even better if you got a few on tape. Until we get evidence that god exists believing in him is by definition wishful thinking this is not a insult to your belief it is just a statement. That’s called being stubborn, it is not a good thing.How about instead of leaving this thread you stay and explain what is wrong with the rules lain down by Percy. By leaving without giving a good reason why the rules are wrong it just looks like you are running away from the argument.

So on your complaint that I called you a hypocrite the facts appear to be that:1) You engaged in hypocritical behaviour - and you accept that it was indeed hypocritical. (It certainly is a a fact that you have not denied acting in such a way despite several opportunities nor have you offered a defence of such behaviour, even when explicitly asked).2) I pointed out that such behaviour was hypocritical3) You have offered no reason why it was wrong of me to do so.As to your current claims all I need to do is to point out - again - that Percy's rules were the point under discussion. I think it is reaosnable to conclude that your "He" included Percy.Apparently it also includes me since I hold that 1947 is not good evidence for the supernatural - and all I have is arguments that neither you nor Buzsaw can rebut. Presumably you hold that it is unreasonable and closed-minded to hold that sound arguments have more weight than your personal opinions.

speculative poppycock. I have quoted it thrice. Show me where it says " Percy is a..."Put up or shut upAs for Randal - Poppycock.
I have said pages ago as to why rule 1 is dodgy. It effectively says: " Do not include this prophecy by Jesus " - indirectly it says this, because rumours of wars WAS a prophecy by Christ.NOW FOR THE LAST TIME : A neutral source MUST make the rules or we are definately going to have bias ones. Who is an evo to make the rules? - A biased rulemaker.
Who is a Creo to make the rules? - A biased rulemaker.DECIDE THE NEUTRAL SOURCE, otherwise : Poppycock.Ned also said if the outcome is silly that IS a viable argument. I think the outcome is silly without a neutral source. Infact Ned, even though he is evo is the only neutral source I can think of - He should be an example to you people.

Mike, I'm not going to get into your issue with Paul, but I am going to bring up rule #1 again.Rule 1 did NOT say you can't use prophesies by Christ...it happened to use a prophesie by Christ as an example of what won't be accepted. Mark and/or Percy could just as easily said "A prophesy such as .. storms in the midwest .. won't be allowed as it isn't specific." If that had been the case and someone had then attempted to use the rumors of wars prophesy it would have been booted as going against rule 1.Rule one wasn't saying Christ's words can't be used....it was saying NON-specific prophesies prove nothing.So I guess it comes down to what YOU would accept in the debate FOR evolution....something nonspecific with numerous possible interpretations? or something definitive that only goes one way? I think that anyone familiar with your past posts knows exactly what you expect from the evolution side.

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

But is my neutral source idea so terrible? Yet it effectively sya you cannot use the prophecy concerning rumours of wars. I still think a neutral source MUST make the rules in a debate effectively between believers and non-believers. Evo and Creo?How is a neutral source wrong Asgara?I think you yourself are a bit against my position, but at the moment I agree with Ned, the outcome is silly.In a football match, would you expect to see the referee as one who plays on one of the teams playing the match? - Ofcourse not. There IS an evolutionist majority here, but that has got NOTHING to do with rule making. Why should one side make the rules.Okay, that really is it. I only responded because it's you.P.S. I'm not sure what you are getting at concerning my past postings. Could you explain? Am I really a "gullible lying hypocrite whos opinion doesn't need to be F'ing added" because I am stringent?[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-11-2004]

I think a neutral sourse is a fabulous idea...now if you can just find one. We effectively have a set of rules on the table.If you don't agree with any or all of them, come up with your own set of rules and we can discuss them. If it is just that one particular rule, then come up with a solution other than "I don't think it's fair". Why isn't it fair...what can be done to fix it... Do you think that a prophesy that can mean absolutely anything you want it to mean is a good prophesy? Why? If you don't...why?Yes, it is saying you can't use the prophesy "rumors of wars" but not because it is Christ's words or anything of that sort. It is such a non-specific prophesy that it could mean anytime at all. WHEN is this talking about...and when ISN'T there "rumors of wars".In the past, Mike, you have expected a lot out of the evos here...you wanted transitional fossils for absolutely every step along the way..and at one time at least, you didn't accept any of the ones shown you to be transitional.Evo's dont' expect anything out of the creo's that they don't expect out of their own....evidenceCreo's expect irrefutable proof from the evo side while accepting much less from their own side.

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

Mike, I have explained several times the reason why your attack should be taken as applying to Percy. You do not address that reasoning at all.Now as to your comment to Rand are you areguing that "wars and rumours of wars" cannot be excluded because Jesus said it ? If so then your argument is just as I said - an attempt to rig the rules in your favour. The rule only stated that "wars and rumours of wars" in itself is NOT a specific prophecy - which is entirely true. "There will be wars and rumours of wars" in itself is NOT a good prophecy at all because it is all but guaranteed to come true. Do you really think that an immediate and permanent end to war for all of humanity was even a remote possibility at the time Jesus would have said it ? Can you name a single century in which there were no wars anywhere in the world ? And this indicates the other point - the one the ruel was really concenred with. War is so common that "wars and rumours of wars" is not useful as a time indicator. If a prophecy can't be tied to a specific time then the probablity that it will come true just by chance is greatly increased.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 01-11-2004]

'Am I out of line' - mike the wiz
'My opinion should not be taken personally' - mike the wiz
'shall we stop name calling ' - mike the wizI have only keep talking because they forced the issue."So I open my door to my enemies and I ask
can we wipe the slate clean
But they tell me to please go f**ck myself,
.....You know you just can't win" - Pink Floyd.What you said is pretty fair, Asgara, I'll go along with it, as I said many moons ago, I'll drop talking about rule 1, will you?
Right now I'm lost for words. I've shown Paul the evidence as to why I did NOT call Percy those things..And it's there for everyone to see. If there's no neutral source, fine. I doubt it will make a quality debate though.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-11-2004]

I think you missed the point. And it is not the referree we are talking about. (that will be hard to find). When a group of guys and gals get together for some sort of pickup game the rules are agreed to by all the players before the game starts.What I meant by my outcome comment was that sometimes you can see that the rules result in universally agreed dumb results. There are electoral systems that can have results that would piss everyone off (like pick everyones second choice -- this would, in the case where 100% of the votes gave a first choice to smith mean he doesn't get in, obviously a dumb rule). If someone can point out such things about rules then we can all agree to change them.You can't get a referee in until you have agreed to the rules. So let's not worry about that. If the rules are good we may not need a referee anyway.And it has already been suggested that one side doesn't have to make the rules. Percy put forward some suggested rules. I haven't seen any coherent discussion of exactly what is wrong with them.For example the specificity rule has been discussed and shown, through the car example, to be necessary. Right?

---

Common sense isn't

Mike, Oh, stop whining. You waltz into a thread because you got pissed because you didn't like hearing that Jesus, Matthew, Mark, & Luke were "wishful thinking". You fail to provide anything that would make an assertion to the contrary evidentially supported, say it was all faith anyway, then hide behind the "you can't attack my religion" nonsense. Yet still think that the above are something less nebulous than the ether.A baseless assertion sans evidence = wishful thinking.If that's attacking your religion then I'm attacking your religion. You could always try defending it, of course. That means independent corroborating evidence that Jesus was the messiah, & that Matthew, Mark, & Luke existed. Correct. And it's a perfectly valid comment. If you don't believe that Hindu gods exist then you can't expect to be taken seriously if you said you hadn't rejected the Hindu religion. That's what this sub-comment was about, your claim that you hadn't rejected other religions.You don't accept that Hindu gods exist = rejecting Hinduism, by definition. Rejecting Hindu gods as being real is tantamount to a rejection of Hinduism. Would you call me a christian if I didn't believe in God or christ? Wouldn't I essentially being rejecting Christianity if I denied that Christ existed? Misquote.I said you were a hypocrite because you offered up the age of the NT, & the fact that persons mentioned in that text are evidence that they existed when you reject other religions based on exactly the same premises. I've said the same thing, what, three times now, how can you get it wrong? Oh, but you do have an opinion of them. You don't believe the Hindu gods exist, what is that if not an opinion? That you are ignorant of their texts is neither here nor there. You have formed an opinion of them despite your ignorance. You have rejected Hinduism as an explanation of the world around us. Ergo, you have rejected Hinduism, by definition. Wrong, it is a valid hypothetical scenario to show that specificity should be a requirement to determine fulfillment of prophecy validation. That's what hypothetical scenarios are for, mate. To test situations against standards in neutral scenarios so that we may examine them objectively.But for the record, 3 minutes ago I made the following prophecy, making the prophecy REAL & no longer hypothetical:I prophecise that a particular car will come down my street in the next five minutes.A blue Astra, reg X593 BNU came past my front wall 2:24 after the prophecies beginning. That was exactly the car I meant. I therefore conclude I have supernatural powers.Wriggle out of that one.The point was that my prophecy was hopelessly vague for what I later claimed it to be. I was not specific. As long as a car came past I could claim the prophecies fulfillment, it wasn't remotely unlikely & is therefore not evidence of anything supernatural. I am long past expecting you to understand that this is why a prophecy must be specific, & only offer up the above for the sake of completeness.....Why does it really take a neutral source to work out something so obvious? I got angry because of the way that you waltzed in here getting pissed of at things you had no right being pissed of with (wishful thinking), then refused to provide the one & only thing that would remove your baseless assertion from its wishful thinking status; evidence. You also failed to provide a single consistent reasonable objection to points 1-6. So no, you didn't give me a hard time at all, you were very, very, very, easy. You certainly haven't applied much thought, & you have defended nothing.All in all I'm disappointed in you. Previously (& in truth I still do, it'll take more than one altercation to reverse my opinion) I had a high opinion of you & the way you conducted yourself, certainly you are more polite than I on a post by post basis! In this case however, you jumped in without thinking, persistently tried to defend the indefensible, & would have been better off staying out. It's not one logical standard for you & another for everyone else.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-11-2004]

All I'll say Mike is that you are far from guiltless in this matter.Your first reply to me in this thread was certainly very hostile.And you could have stopped talking about the issue when you said you wanted to. The discussion of that point would have died down soon enough. Or better yet you could have issued an apology then instead of refusing to admit that you had done anything wrong. But you didn't. Instead you took the position that it was automatically wrong to criticise you for any reason (even though you have no problem attacking others with little excuse) and decided to to use excuses, evasions and (false) denials. The thread speaks for itself. And you're still trying to blame others instead of admitting your own part in it.

That's okay, I still love you.
Despite your immediate cursing and insulting. I truly bare no ill will towards you. I only say that because I've never heard of him. I have never read about Hindu, to be honest I am not sure what it is. So you are right, I shouldn't even say " I don't believe they exist " - I will now officially say " I don't know, I have no opinion". You forget I know Jesus, and I believe he is the Messiah. Obviously then I have a right to defend in a public forum. Yet you cannot find one quote that makes me a " gullible hypocrytical religious persona who has rejected religions and whose opinion doesn't need to be f'ing added "Put up or shut up.
You can say it's been easy but I still want those quotes were I have insulted and rejected each and every religion. NO.....? Then this is all Poppycock to me.You could have avoided all this if you had just taken my hand I offered when I said I'd shut up about rule 1.
You yourself have dissapointed me, with your foul language. If anything atleast I can bite my tongue whereas you folded under the heat.Neverthless I do still love you even if you are my enemy. I mean that, I think you really know your stuff about evolution. It would credit you a great deal if you stuck to evolution talk.Honestly, when I read message 1 I thought for once I would not make it an easy thread for your side. You say it's been easy, but can you ignore the fact that I have atleast kept you busy, and I have atleast not let you have a comfortable time of it. Usually it's Buz versus the jargonaters, I thought I could help him. Guess what Mark, I really will shut up now. As I am very able to bite my tongue.

Then I apologise. If I seemed hostile. Maybe there is truth to me getting personal, even though you have no quotes. Nevertheless, I really love you when you say I "was hostile". You'll find that's true........ I didn't hink I came off hostile personally....Sorry Paul. If I am still worthy to say sorry, accept my apology.