Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   One Liner of the Month
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 31 of 41 (73288)
12-16-2003 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by MrHambre
12-09-2003 12:24 AM


Re: Credit Where Credit's Due
No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
Except what Mencken said was taste, not intelligence. But he might well be right with either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by MrHambre, posted 12-09-2003 12:24 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 32 of 41 (73595)
12-16-2003 10:10 PM


Crashfrog said:
quote:
It's a body of old sea-water trapped by massive geologic uplift some millions of years ago.
OK, I'm calling you on this one. Wild, off the cuff BS. See just upstring for the views of others from the evo side.
Moose

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2003 10:19 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2003 10:20 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 33 of 41 (73596)
12-16-2003 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Minnemooseus
12-16-2003 10:10 PM


OK, I'm calling you on this one. Wild, off the cuff BS. See just upstring for the views of others from the evo side.
No, it was from the website I looked at regarding that city. It said that Lake Titicaca was trapped sea-water from geologic uplift. It said it used to be part of the ocean.
Maybe I got the time-frame wrong. I'm bad with dates. What exactly is inaccurate, here?
In fact Rei seems to confirm the general idea of what I'm saying:
It's about what would be expected from how long it would have taken for the Nasca and Andes plates to push the area up.
Now, I'm not saying that Lake Titicaca is as salty as the ocean. I had thought that by saying "old seawater" I had made no specific clame about salinity. But if you feel that "old seawater" doesn't describe what Rei is talking about, then I'll amend my post.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-16-2003 10:10 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 34 of 41 (73597)
12-16-2003 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Minnemooseus
12-16-2003 10:10 PM


duplicate deleted
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-16-2003 10:10 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 41 (79186)
01-18-2004 12:16 AM


From AdminNosy:
quote:
Guys, please read the topic title. This thread is for a scientific discussion. Please take the biblical references elsewhere. Thanks.

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 36 of 41 (89776)
03-02-2004 11:58 AM


Who else but Ken......
From here, Ken, when asked to identify who it was that questioned a verse in the Gospel of Luke called on all his research skills to come up with..........
It appears to have been a historian.
Priceless, and one I think for Winace's fundies say the strangest things.
Brian.

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 41 (89793)
03-02-2004 1:57 PM


TO: ALL
To ALL:
I have removed this contents of this post as Brian seems to be acting somewhat more reasonable if a recent post is to be used as a benchmark. I have changed the content of this post as gesture of goodwill.
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-02-2004]

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 41 (90051)
03-03-2004 1:50 PM


To: ALL
TO ALL:
While I removed my pointed previous post in regards to Brian I did want to offer some perspective from my side of the fence.
I would say that Brian fails to see my perspective in regards to providing more specificity regarding which particular skeptic made a charge against the Bible that was later overturned. I would ask what incentive is there for me to do so? Considering that I researched the Jonah piece and provided multiple pieces of corroborative evidence and completely refuted Brian's fallacious argumentation (see: http://EvC Forum: What is EVC Forum's policy on satire and is allowed and to what extent? -->EvC Forum: What is EVC Forum's policy on satire and is allowed and to what extent?) and the string was closed before I could do more of the same, I see zero incentive. I would say the moderators in the Bible Accuracy section of EVC Forum have demonstrated their commitment to intellectual freedom and no words they can offer as an afterthought will cause me to go out of my way to offer more specificity in the particular string Brian is referring to. Until there are changes in that section of EVC Forum I guess Brian and others will have to at suspect that the Oxford Bible Commentary may be justified in taking a "chastened historical criticism" approach in their commentary. Unless, of course, Brian and his cohorts decide to open the Jonah string and then I would gladly when time allows offer one or more very specific examples for the string at the Bible Accuracy section that Brian is referring to.
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-03-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by AdminAsgara, posted 03-03-2004 4:03 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 39 of 41 (90091)
03-03-2004 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by kendemyer
03-03-2004 1:50 PM


Re: To: ALL
Ken, this is a humorous "One Liner of the Month" thread. It isn't meant to be debated or to bring up issues from the thread the one-liner was taken from.
And in regards to your deleted post...one liner means just that...one line, not a commentary on another poster in general.

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by kendemyer, posted 03-03-2004 1:50 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 41 (91371)
03-09-2004 11:08 AM


Smooth operator
Brad finally makes his move on Crashfrog...
We will have sexual reproduction even if there were only man-made clocks.
Some of us were thinking it would never happen.
PE

Mrs Hardy: "And how is Mrs Laurel?"
Stanley: "Oh, fine thank you."
Mrs Hardy: "I'd love to meet her some time."
Stanley: "Neither do I, too."

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-09-2004 11:44 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 41 (91379)
03-09-2004 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Primordial Egg
03-09-2004 11:08 AM


Re: Smooth operator
Oh, I knew it was coming. That kind of rampant tension can only last so long before something breaks.

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Primordial Egg, posted 03-09-2004 11:08 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024