The 25 fulfilled prophecies of Isaiah chapter 53

[DOC]

None. I apologize, I misread that statement.

DOC never admits any mistakes or ever being wrong no matter how wrong he is or when he is caught in a lie.

That statement was part of the drinking game. If DOC ever admits faulty logic, then we should all down an entire bottle. Since he will never ever admit being wrong, we won't become too drunk.

Joobz will tell you I've admitted to being wrong about something at least 2 times. So you are incorrect again.

 

[Ducky]

All it shows is one post where I talk about it. Talking about something in a few posts is not a thread on the thing you are talking about. This is a perfect example at how easy some people throw out the word liar. It's sad.

I showed 6 posts of you citing that.

One of the threads most certainly did have a title reflecting that post. Please try clicking the licks I provide. The first one (ie. the word "it") has the title of "The most influential person in history." That was started by applecorped. You started a thread about "the troublesome words of an influential atheist" and that also is included in the links above.

So you are a liar.

 

[joobz]

Joobz will tell you I've admitted to being wrong about something at least 2 times. So you are incorrect again.

Oh DOC, Can you tell who Jesus had sex with? This seems to be a rather big problem for you....

 

[joobz]

I thought this was interesting:
DOC, what's your opinion?
Really the whole thing should be watched, but in particular:
Time 5:57-7:00
and
Time 7:55-9:30

 

[kmortis]

But you said this in post #3:



This is not only a personal attack but a false one. I have not said my logic is faulty. If you choose not to apologize, you and your future posts will have no credibility.

• Do you really think I care what you think about me? Seriously?
• The point was that you've never admitted that your logic is faulty, even when it's been pointed out to you multiple times.
• I will not apologize to you about this.

There was no thread about the 100 most influential people as slingblade states -- why is that funny.

You have no idea who Andy Kaufman was and why I'm comparing him to you or you're better at it than I originally had you pegged.

Ever wrestled women?

Ever imitate Elvis?

Sing the Mighty Mouse theme?

 

[kmortis]

Oh DOC, Can you tell who Jesus had sex with? This seems to be a rather big problem for you....

ya know, whenever you mention Jesus having sex, I can only picture the classic Blond Jesus singing Marvin Gaye's "Let's get it on".


.................................

 

[Dancing David]

Oh DOC, Can you tell who Jesus had sex with? This seems to be a rather big problem for you....

Much older than the DaVinci Code, Jesus is assumed to have been married because it is tradtionally part of being a rabbi. (Holy Blood Holy Grail mentions the wedding feast as being his wedding.)

But i heard he hung out with the publicans and sinners, was famous for party tricks when every one was drunk, I won't detail the resurection stunt, he stole it from Isis...

 

[paximperium]

Ugh...Holy Blood Holy Grail spoiled the Da Vinci code for me...that and an old Gabriel Knight computer game with a detective out to solve the same mystery.

 

[Belz...]

You are right. It uses the word descendants.
A descendant is the offspring of a person.


Nope.
You are bending words to retrofit your wishes into reality.

Sorry buy offspring and descendants are not children of god.


The irony here, DOC, is that you claim that "descendants" are a metaphor for christians as christians are called "the children of god".


YET, you also claim that "Son of God" means the actua son of god, even though that was historically used as a metaphor.

So I ask, why is "Son of god" not a metaphor, yet descendant is a metaphor?


Let me give the honest answer to that question: Because you want it to be.

DOC, I'd like to see that answered, too.

 

[Belz...]

I showed 6 posts of you citing that.

One of the threads most certainly did have a title reflecting that post. Please try clicking the licks I provide.

Yuck!

 

[Lothian]

But none of the above were named after someone who denied the founder to a lone woman..

Any evidence that someone denied the founder to a lone woman, other than in the bible fable?

 

[Wildy]

You are now on the Jewish Hitlist.

Is that an "I'm in on the joke" mad, or a "I'm going to kill you if I see you" mad?

 

[Dancing David]

Ugh...Holy Blood Holy Grail spoiled the Da Vinci code for me...that and an old Gabriel Knight computer game with a detective out to solve the same mystery.

I want to say I am not promoting HBHG, it is surpassed in woo only by the one about the ark...

 

[Ladewig]

I
I think most people who have followed my threads are starting to see that most of these attack posts don't paint an accurate picture of me or my posts.

I don't suppose you have any evidence supporting this assertion. I am talking about evidence such as posts where people actually say "these attacks on DOC do not paint an accurate picture of him."

 

[paximperium]

Is that an "I'm in on the joke" mad, or a "I'm going to kill you if I see you" mad?

Both? It is a joke but the Jews are also out to kill ya!

 

[temporalillusion]

Post 8) Don't believe I ever said Evolution is absurd. I believe I said abiogenesis (life coming from non-life over time) is absurd and has never been proved. In other words a simple living cell coming from non-living material has never been proved.

Abiogenesis HAS been proved. You are all the evidence that is required.

At some point in the past there was no biological life. Then there was (you and your ancestors). So this proves abiogenesis. Regardless of the method (natural processes, aliens, God), abiogenesis is self evident.

I think what you are saying is that you think that a naturally occurring method of abiogenesis is what you find absurd.

Which is interesting, what are the various ideas of a natural abiogenesis that you understand and why do you think they are absurd?

 

[X]

Abiogenesis HAS been proved. You are all the evidence that is required.

At some point in the past there was no biological life. Then there was (you and your ancestors). So this proves abiogenesis. Regardless of the method (natural processes, aliens, God), abiogenesis is self evident.

I think what you are saying is that you think that a naturally occurring method of abiogenesis is what you find absurd.

Which is interesting, what are the various ideas of a natural abiogenesis that you understand and why do you think they are absurd?

He said a cell coming from non-living chemicals is absurd.
To be fair to DOC, such a thing would be.

Now, self-replicating chemicals coming from non-self-replicating chemicals is possible.
Self-replicating chemicals competing with each other is possible.
Self replicating chemicals combining with other self-replicating chemicals into a ball is possible. Or just bonding with other chemicals into a protective shell.
And many other gradual steps (DNA, metabolism, etc etc) occur.
And somewhere along the line, the definitions of "living" and "non-living" get really fuzzy.
And finally you have a cell.


But a cell coming directly from non-living chemicals?
It would be absurd. If anyone was claiming such a thing, that is...


Cue DOC coming in to say that the process I've listed above is the same thing as "a cell coming from non-living chemicals"...

 

[Belz...]

You are now on the Jewish Hitlist.

GODWIN!! Oh, wait a minute. Hitlist, sorry!

 

[Belz...]

Abiogenesis HAS been proved. You are all the evidence that is required.

It's amazing that theists fail to realise that even THEY believe in abiogenesis.

 

[paximperium]

GODWIN!! Oh, wait a minute. Hitlist, sorry!

You're now on it as well