Enoch2021

1. Why are you arguing a Straw Man?? You said "The Church" isn't a Female. Well... This is the ACTUAL Argument... (Ephesians 5:27-32) "That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. {28} So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. {29} For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: {30} For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. {31} For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. {32} This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church." And This... (2 Corinthians 11:1-2) "Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me. {2} For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." And This... (Revelation 19:7-9) "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. {8} And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. {9} And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God." Who is Christ's Wife...? 2. Now for the Straw Man, initially You said: "Also a lot of Bibles have the word `she` in Eph. 5: 25 & 26, in reference to the Body of Christ, when in actual fact the word is `it.` Meaning His body, and not a female." After I challenged you with...: "So Christ gave himself for Christ "IT" ?" Then you say: "`it,` the church." As just shown to you above, "The Church" IS Clearly... Female. Yes, "The Church"-- Born Again Christians. Well because it was Paul's honor that the Lord bestowed on him to reveal a Mystery ("The Church") which was NOT known until then ... (Ephesians 3:1-6) "For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, {2} If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: {3} How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, {4} Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) {5} Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; {6} That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:" Israel is NOT "The Church". They have different Births, Roles, and Destinies. In fact, from then (See Matthew 13:10-11) till currently... (Romans 11:25) "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." The "Wife" ("The Church") isn't Blinded. And Israel was known long before Ephesians was penned. The "it" is Christ's: Bride, Wife, Chaste Virgin = "The Church"; They are ONE Flesh. regards

Well... *Codex Alexandrinus: found around 1630 brought to England. A fifth Century Manuscript containing the Entire New Testament. *Codex Siniaticus: found early 1800's by German Scholar Constantin von Tischendorf discovered it in a trash can in St Catherine's Monastery at the Traditional Mt Sinai. Dated around 350 AD, is one of the 2 Oldest manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. *Codex Vaticanus: in the Vatican Library since @ least 1481 but not made available to scholars until the middle of the 19th Century. Dated around 325 AD, complete Greek New Testament. German Biblical scholar Constantin von Tischendorf wrote about his visit to the monastery in Reise in den Orient in 1846 (translated as Travels in the East in 1847), without mentioning the manuscript. Later, in 1860, in his writings about the Sinaiticus discovery, Tischendorf wrote a narrative about the monastery and the manuscript that spanned from 1844 to 1859. He wrote that in 1844, during his first visit to the Saint Catherine's Monastery, he saw some leaves of parchment in a waste-basket. They were "rubbish which was to be destroyed by burning it in the ovens of the monastery", although this is firmly denied by the Monastery. Skeat, T. C., "The Last Chapter in the History of the Codex Sinaiticus". Novum Testamentum. Vol. 42, Fasc. 3, Jul., 2000. p. 313. All three believed to originate in Alexandria Egypt; Home of the Gnostics. In 156 AD, Irenaeus (talking about the Gnostics): "Wherefore they and their followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures which they themselves have shortened." *There are over 3,000 confirmed contradictions between the Vaticanus and Siniaticus in the FOUR GOSPELS alone !! See it now? These are the Codices the Heretics Westcott and Hort used in all their translations. A Side Note: When the Lord decided to knock this wretch off the fence, I was directed to researching the TRUE Word of God. After about 6 months of making sure all the "I's" were dotted (I needed to be sure ), I remember thinking what's an easy way to Absolutely CONFIRM what I found?? Well, what Bible do former satanists/luciferians (SEE: free masons) reference WITHOUT EXCEPTION ? Well... That would be the Authorized King James Version. Am I saying it is without error? NOPE. But for me, it's in Slam Dunk Territory. Hope it Helps

Let's have a look... (Ephesians 5:25-26) "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; {26} That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word," I'm trying to figure out what your actual argument is here? ps. "...and gave himself for "it". So Christ gave himself for Christ "IT" ? This is the ACTUAL Argument... (Ephesians 5:27-32) "That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. {28} So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. {29} For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: {30} For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. {31} For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. {32} This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church." And This... (2 Corinthians 11:1-2) "Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me. {2} For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." And This... (Revelation 19:7-9) "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. {8} And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. {9} And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God." Who is Christ's Wife...? 1. Your first 'alleged' error is a Straw Man (Wrong Argument); SEE Above. 2. This one isn't so clear, and gives me pause. Many people conclude that because ... (Revelation 19:8) "And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints." and... (Revelation 19:14) "And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean." ...That "The Church" (Wife) is a part of the armies and follow Christ back. IMHO... a. I don't think both are Mutually Inclusive. b. Wives don't battle/engage in Warfare. So... I will not commit here The Body of Christ is clearly "The Church" (Wife). The Head isn't "The Body". regards

What on Earth?? Well... what are the TWO Tactics (and Practical Examples) that God told you that satan uses? ... 1. Create Doubt in The Word... (Genesis 3:1) "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" Then... 2. Outright Denial/CHANGE The Word of God... (Genesis 3:4) "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:" So how do you CHANGE the Word of God down through the millennia?? How many "Bibles" we got? 1. Stereotype Fallacy. 2. Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy. Non-Sequitur Fallacy. Your Conclusion doesn't follow from the Premise---which is Fallacious to begin with (See directly above). 1. Non-Sequitur Fallacy (as shown above). 2. So because some Christians have taken it upon themselves to research the Source Documents...and the known/SELF ADMITTED Heretic Translators (Westcott and Hort)... and brought these facts to the light; THEN...shared this Information with their Christian Brothers and Sisters; Therefore, these brothers and sisters are divisive and should be dismissed and we should go back to following the words of Established Documented Heretics to keep the peace??? Yes, makes perfect sense. I'm sure The Lord would approve. (Hosea 4:6) "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." 1. Stereotype Fallacy 2. Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy Premise. Leading to a... 3. Non-Sequitur Fallacy Conclusion (Again). Straw Man Fallacy. Whoever says that there are not ERRORS in the AKJV is just ignorant. ps. And, Please define what you mean by "errors"...? Great Googly Moogly !!! What on Earth are you talking about? You do realize that the AKJV is 'translated' into other languages, right? (Obviously Rhetorical) 1. What 'Other' Versions, specifically?? And please provide the Source Documents (Codices)...? 2. 'Earlier' doesn't make something more accurate. Well because each of your arguments are premised on Logical Fallacies. Please post satan's lies then dovetail them with the AKJV to SUPPORT your claims...? regards ps. I personally use: AKJV, Septuagint (LXX), ISV, and ESV.

Factually Incorrect: EVIDENCE -- a : an outward sign : indication b: something that furnishes PROOF: testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence PROOF Synonyms: attestation, Confirmation, corroboration, documentation, EVIDENCE, substantiation, testament, testimonial, testimony, Validation, voucher, witness. https://www.merriam-webster. com/thesaurus/proof Ergo, your entire argument is refuted right here. How so...? I agree, but you used it in that context... so I retorted. The lack of insulin CAUSING DKA in Type 1 Diabetes Patients is NOT a Correlation (Epidemiological) Study; it's Direct Experiment. And it's not merely "Observed", it's TESTED (Experiment). And my son's bike uses a chain; but the chain isn't a bike. Science. 1. CITE Source differentiating "Scientific Logic" and "Logic"...? 2. More "robust" than what? 1. Reification Fallacy. "Science" doesn't make claims, Science is A Method: The Scientific Method. 2. Claims are TESTED (Experiment); there is no further or more robust "Scrutiny". Well there's only ONE possible "CAUSAL FACTOR" in every Scientific Hypothesis; it's called the Independent Variable; So there is no assumption. 1. Post your "Scrutiny" Method...? a. Does your Scrutiny Method trump The Scientific Method (Experiment)...? 2. There is no "Perfect Knowledge", save for God. Again, "Observation" is merely the First Step of The Scientific Method. We don't trust 'observations' solely, that's why they're TESTED (Experiment). Well as mentioned here (and many times in the past), observation alone can't be 'Trusted', that's why we subject those observations to Experiment -- it's called The Scientific Method. We kinda do, that has been Validated by Experiment (SEE: Quantum Mechanics). Huh? 1. What is "Scientific" Confidence...? Juxtapose that with "Confidence"...? 2. Observing Phenomena (The First Step of The Scientific Method) and "LOOKING" at Experimental Results are not "The Same". It's a clumsy Equivocation Fallacy. I know what it is. How did I make this error here or anywhere else...? 1. Your position on 'observations' was already exposed above, SEE: Equivocation Fallacy. 2. You are arguing for a Position: Tristen: "Until we have infinite knowledge, we don’t know what we don’t know." Your Position is: You contrive 'Infinite Knowledge' as the Standard for knowing anything (The Premise), then... State we can't know anything without it (Conclusion). It's a Trainwreck. Your position is based on a Lack of Knowledge (actual or perceived). Well... Ignorance: Lack of Knowledge. Appeal to Ignorance (Fallacy): arguing for a position using the lack of evidence/knowledge. Voila Because the "Knowledge" wasn't obtained through The Scientific Method...to begin with. "Just-So" Stories need 'Updated', not ACTUAL Science. Non-Sequitur Fallacy resulting from a Begging The Question Fallacy Premise: "How many times has knowledge had to be updated to account for newly discovered information?" Yes you did, it was IMPLIED ... Tristen: "Until we have infinite knowledge, we don’t know what we don’t know. Therefore, every idea remains subject to scrutiny." Ergo, No Straw Man. 1. A Hypothesis is generated from Observing Phenomena, The Antecedent. The "Idea" part is The Consequent. 2. Actually EVERYTHING we do is based on "Philosophy". Factually Incorrect. It's merely your "Subjective" Opinion, and it's Baseless. regards

That wasn't the Argument, that was the Assessment. The detailed 'Point by Point' Argument supporting that Assessment was directly beneath it. It was in the post that you quoted in it's "Entirety" but didn't speak a single word to any of it; Ergo: Cherry Picking Fallacy. No I mean 'Point by Point' Correcting each claim. You know, these you Wholesale DODGED... Proof is "Evidence". Scientific Evidence comes directly from Experiments: "TESTING". Mathematical "Proofs" are not EVIDENCE of anything in reality. Watch... 1 Apple - 6 Apples = -5 Apples. This is ABSOLUTIST "Nonsense". So essentially your position is: "1 Apple - 6 Apples = -5 Apples" is an Absolute PROOF. But... Lack of Insulin causing DKA in Type 1 Diabetes Patients (or any of the 10,000+ Experiments I could post) is not Absolute or Proof of anything, eh Mathematics isn't "Science" and Peer-Review is the Antithesis of it. What's the difference between Scientific Logic and just plain ole run-o-the-mill logic...? Really... how "intense"? Well when something has Experiment after Experiment showing the same result, then it's VERIFIED beyond question...because we VERIFIED it beyond question via Experiment. Critical Reasoning has nothing to do with it. What would you suggest as a replacement for Observation?? Imagination? And "Observation" is merely the First Step of The Scientific Method because The Scientific Method doesn't solely rely on Observation; Hence...the next six steps are invoked. Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy and Mind Numbing Bullocks; Non-Sequitur Fallacy. So you're saying that since we don't know how the sun works; THEREFORE, the Lack of Vit C causing Scurvy is Unverifiable?? ps. We don't TEST 'Ideas', in "Science"...that's Philosophy. No. Just as before, I merely provided a 'Point by Point' deconstruction of your claims (SEE: above in green). And since you have no coherent response, apparently you're reduced to: Conjured Caricatures, Appeals to Emotion, and Baseless Ipse Dixit 'bare' Assertion Fallacies to somehow cloak your lack of support in lieu of the aforementioned coherent argument. ProTip: Asking for coherent support or correcting the ERRORS for claims made, isn't an attack on you sir.........for goodness sakes. The real concern is the employment of Red Herring Fallacy (Diversions) away from them. regards

Well yes, your claims/questions compromised you. What else is left? It has been quite explicitly illustrated/demonstrated that you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie. But no problem, it's probably better that you don't comment on your Baseless Conjectures anyway... it'd just make it worse for ya (Self Incrimination). regards

Malformed Question, Non Sequitur Fallacy. Because you don't know what "Science" is, Watch ... The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method. The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests). The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis". A Scientific Hypothesis is your Experiment Statement; it expresses a TESTABLE proposed CAUSE and EFFECT Relationship - (The Phenomena that was Observed in Step 1) . It's a classic: "IF"this "THEN" that, motif. "A Scientific Hypothesis is based on CAUSE-EFFECT reasoning. A scientific hypothesis does not merely state X and Y may be related, but *EXPLAINS WHY* they are related. Loehle, C: Becoming a Successful Scientist -- Strategic Thinking for Scientific Discovery; Cambridge University Press, p. 57, 2010 Because Experiments (Hypothesis Tests) ONLY adjudicate 'Cause and Effect' --- How/Why questions. Whatever SHAPE something is (Flat, Sphere, or Spinning/Not Spinning ect)...is a "WHAT/IS" question; it's tantamount to asking: How/Why is a Breadbox Rectangular, True or False?? i.e., You can NEVER formulate a Viable Alternative Hypothesis; Ergo...you can NEVER formulate a Viable Null Hypothesis; Ergo...None of this IS "Science" !! You haven't the First Clue what ACTUAL "Science" is. AS EVIDENCED BY, your comment just above. It's a Prima Facie call based on your response. Elephant Hurling Fallacy. regards

Preposterous! And you have been corrected on this many times in the past. Proof is "Evidence". Scientific Evidence comes directly from Experiments: "TESTING". Mathematical "Proofs" are not EVIDENCE of anything in reality. Watch... 1 Apple - 6 Apples = -5 Apples. This is ABSOLUTIST "Nonsense". So essentially your position is: "1 Apple - 6 Apples = -5 Apples" is an Absolute PROOF. But... Lack of Insulin causing DKA in Type 1 Diabetes Patients (or any of the 10,000+ Experiments I could post) is not Absolute or Proof of anything, eh? Mathematics isn't "Science" and Peer-Review is the Antithesis of it. What's the difference between Scientific Logic and just plain ole run-o-the-mill logic...? Really... how "intense"?? Well when something has Experiment after Experiment showing the same result, then it's VERIFIED beyond question...because we VERIFIED it beyond question via Experiment. Critical Reasoning has nothing to do with it. What would you suggest as a replacement for Observation?? Imagination? And "Observation" is merely the First Step of The Scientific Method because The Scientific Method doesn't solely rely on Observation; Hence...the next six steps are invoked. Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy and Mind Numbing Bullocks; Non-Sequitur Fallacy. So you're saying that since we don't know how the sun works; THEREFORE, the Lack of Vit C causing Scurvy is Unverifiable?? ps. We don't TEST Ideas, in "Science"...that's Philosophy. regards

You're in the wrong forum. Basing your 'beliefs' on others 'opinions' without personal scrutiny/due diligence is not a sound argument or position and a recipe for disaster. As mentioned, you're in the Wrong Forum... The Final Arbiter of TRUTH in 'Science' is EXPERIMENT !! Lewars, EG: Computational Chemistry -- Introduction to the theory and application of Molecular and Quantum Mechanics; Third Edition 2016, p. 5. "The only way things change in Physics is EXPERIMENTS. ...Everything is based on EXPERIMENT, that's the only way we change our mind." Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale. Wave Theory of Light. ( .22 second mark) "If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's WRONG. In that simple statement is the KEY to SCIENCE". Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds. “EXPERIMENT is the only means of knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is POETRY, IMAGINATION.” Max Planck (Nobel Prize, Physics), Quoted in; Atkins P.W.,: Molecular Quantum Mechanics; Oxford University Press, 1983 "The scientific method REQUIRES that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a VALID description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "EXPERIMENT is SUPREME" and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical predictions is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY." http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html Not data, Not opinion, Not favorite colors, Not agreements... ad nauseam; Experiments and EXPERIMENTS ALONE! Savvy? As discussed previously, "KIND" is not a Biological Term it's a Biblical Term; Apples and Orangutans. As discussed previously, "KIND" is not a Biological Term it's a Biblical Term; Apples and Orangutans. From who...Neil 'smokin de-Grass' Tyson, Larry Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Other?? Belly Laugher of a Romper Room Equivocation Fallacy.... (Genesis 1:11-12) "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. {12} And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:25) "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good." regards

What on Earth?? Ahhh NEGATIVE, "Science"-- The Scientific Method is Objective. 'Agree/Disagree' is Subjective. SEE the Difference ?? Agree/Disagree "Acceptance" is Subjective and hallmarks of: Political "science", Propaganda States, 2nd Grade Story Time, and Religions. Scientists are in the business of explaining "Cause and Effect" Relationships via rigorous Hypothesis TESTING (Objective)... NO EXCEPTIONS! So your ambiguous "Experts in a given field AGREE on something" appeal is no better/holds no more veracity than priests or politicians pushing agendas or 'Beliefs'. "Rational" ?? If the "Experts" didn't come by their Pontifications as a result of Experiments (Hypothesis TESTING), then their 'Opinions' and 'Agreements' are no better than that of kindergartners. This is why your continuously pushing your Pseudo-Science "agreement" Appeal to Consensus Fallacy... ...la la la Species Nonsense that's laying back at the beginning of this thread in ashes!! ERGO...any extrapolation thereof is a Begging The Question Fallacy from the Black Lagoon. As explained and illustrated to you ad nauseam, but you just can't let your Pseudo-Science 'Narrative' go. Yes, that's right. BUT that fact (that you already knew before you asked the question) doesn't give you warrant to wantonly go about spreading your "Species"/"Experts in a given field" Pseudo-Science Nonsense as containing any semblance of veracity. Here you go again with your prearranged "Agenda". "Kinds" is not a 'Biological Term', it's a 'Biblical Term'. So your fallacious question is a purposeful mixing of 'apples and orangutans' from jump street. ps. Your "OP" is "TKO'd"...and has been ever since you posted it. regards

Now there's a Contradiction in Terms. regards

'Opinions' have NO MEANING in "Science"; it's the ANTITHESIS of it, for goodness sakes. So now, after your OP has been PUMMELED six ways from Sunday, you're reduced to waffling between "Meaning" and "Proof"? Yea, in fact... I'd trust the kindergartner's 'Opinions' more!! regards

Well they do say, "Ignorance is Bliss". What's "That" which I think...? Save for proffer a coherent substantive argument or position in lieu of this Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit 'Color Commentary' Baseless trainwreck. regards

You're a Physicist and this is your response?? I don't care if it contains a picture of Liberace and George Washington sporting purple tutu's riding side-saddle on a hobbled Pink Unicorn winging around the Sombrero Galaxy. Common Sense forms the 'Main' basis for the conclusion. Goodness Gracious regards

1. Actually, according to 'The Narrative', the light source is very close to the Relative Size of the Sun. 2. Actually, the further away the Light Source... the worse your case becomes. Thanks!! SEE the... Convergent Sun Rays! "Crepuscular rays are PARALLEL!" http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/11/02/crepuscular-rays-are-parallel/#.WdELTFtSy02 Your Cartoon has some 'Splainin to do' because it takes Eratosthenes Fairytale outback to the Woodshed and gives him "What For"!! (It's a Trainwreck anyways, SEE: Cleomedes) So which is it...Convergent Sun Rays or Parallel Sun Rays?? Can't have Both. And lastly, according to 'The Narrative'... the sun is 93,000,000 Miles Away, so the Sun is relatively the same size as the Moon. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have Solar Eclipses. ps. So you claimed that in my ACTUAL PICTURE the light source was too close; what about the light source in your Cartoon?? Thanks for Confirming my Case. regards

You mean the Book of Genesis ? ps. 'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science. Stereotype Fallacy ps. This is now over 10 TIMES !! ... How many times are you gonna WHOLESALE DODGE and 'Whistle Past The Graveyard' here... 'evolution' What's that...?? Define evolution...? a. Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...? b. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a REAL Scientific Theory...? c. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...? d. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...? You banking on me forgetting or something? Fat Chance. regards

Even after being corrected -- explicitly, multiple times... on your 'ERRORS' and specifically your 'ERROR' with "Species/Speciation", you just continue 'Whist'n Past The Graveyard' with the same Nonsensical Pummeled 'Narrative' ?? R-Ya-Kiddin Me ?? regards

Book/Chapter/Verse...? And can you explain this... (Genesis 3:14-15) "And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: {15} And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Serpent = satan (an Angel). Between thee = satan (an Angel). thy seed = satan (an Angel) has seed. Why would satan (an Angel) have seed if Angels don't reproduce? regards

More Cartoons. Do you have a coherent "Substantive" argument/position regarding anything by chance? ps. You still have a sizable post 'step-by step' deconstructing your entire treatise (OP) that you WHOLESALE DODGED, here: Pseudo-Science Deconstruct We're still waiting. regards

1. Why 'reinvent the wheel' with your False Equivalence Fallacy 'experiment', when the University of Minnesota already showed it ("as if" we actually needed it)... So again, How can you have a shadow projected from an object that's ~30 Times Smaller than the ACTUAL Object?? 2. Why do we need your contrived False Equivalence Fallacy Experiment when we have High Altitude Balloon Footage of the Actual Eclipse showing NO Penumbra, (You Tube): Flat Earth Eclipse - Rahu or Luna? Special Balloon Redemption Edition! (Start at 3:09:00) At 3:11:40... "Notice here and on all the other footage NO PENUMBRA". ps. Do you finally realize that according to the tenets of the Coriolis Effect, the notion that the Earth is 'Spinning' is a Fairytale of Epic Proportions? And if that's the case (and it most assuredly is ), then Alice in Wonderland is more tenable than the Spinning-Ball Religion. regards

What in the World is this ^^^^ ?? Goodness your position is Bankrupt. Really...How so? What was your point, save for the fallacies, specifically? 1. Appeal to Motive/Intent Fallacy. 2. Yes, that's why I'm quoting each of your trainwrecks and responding to each specifically and repeatedly. And AGAIN: one.opinion: "The Young Earth Creationists that propose this rapidly expanding balloon of speciation are perfectly fine with this aspect of evolution, after all, it is easily observed." As we can clearly see, you Incoherently Shoehorned in that Fairytale 'evolution'!! ... As in this "Aspect of evolution... is EASILY OBSERVED". That dog doesn't hunt here! Change in Allele Frequency DOES NOT (and Never Will) = Fairytale 'evolution'. I never "Changed My Tune" Besides pointing out your Fallacious Arguments, it's been Change in Allele Frequency the entire time. It's really easy, as Explained and Illustrated... Your entire argument "Dish" is a Main Course Fairytale ('evolution')...decorated with a Begging The Question Fallacy from the Black Lagoon Rubber Ruler ('Species') Garnish. What did I "AVOID", pray tell? ps. This is now over 10 TIMES !! ... So how many times are you gonna WHOLESALE DODGE and 'Whistle Past The Graveyard' here... 'evolution' What's that...?? Define evolution...? a. Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...? b. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a REAL Scientific Theory...? c. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...? d. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...? You banking on me forgetting or something? Fat Chance. regards

Why would you need to? The Citation explained it as Change in Allele Frequency, I then summarized it as Change in Allele Frequency...then I said Change in Allele Frequency, for a Third Time in a follow on post. You then say "we're finally getting somewhere", when...I already been there for decades sippin piña colada's. So what are you talking about? Really?? Let's see after I "SIFT THROUGH" what you say ... one.opinion: "The Young Earth Creationists that propose this rapidly expanding balloon of speciation are perfectly fine with this aspect of evolution, after all, it is easily observed." As we can clearly see, you Incoherently Shoehorned in that Fairytale 'evolution'!! ... As in this "Aspect of evolution... is EASILY OBSERVED". That dog doesn't hunt here! Change in Allele Frequency DOES NOT (and Never Will) = Fairytale 'evolution'. Yes, I know. It doesn't help your case One Iota; in fact, it shoots it in the head. Yes and Aphrodite was actually Elmer Fudd in drag and was directly responsible for the TET Offensive. So how many times are you gonna WHOLESALE DODGE and 'Whistle Past The Graveyard' here... 'evolution' What's that...?? Define evolution...? a. Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...? b. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a REAL Scientific Theory...? c. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...? d. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...? You banking on me forgetting or something? Fat Chance. regards

I already posted this... [Yes, it's called: Change in Allele Frequency], twice. This is getting well past ridiculous... 1. Stereotype Fallacy (AGAIN!) 2. Begging The Question Fallacy from the Black Lagoon (AGAIN!) 3. evolution is a Fairytale! (AGAIN!)... What's that...?? Define evolution...? a. Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...? b. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a REAL Scientific Theory...? c. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...? d. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...? Your WHOLESALE DODGING of this over and over again is quite hilarious. You just can't drop the 'Narrative' can ya? I'd say there's a better chance of 'observing' Liberace being resurrected sporting a purple tutu and jumping on a chartreuse hobbled unicorn and riding around the Sombrero Galaxy. Do I need to post the Citation Again? No problem using the term "species" in it's context (The Arbitrary Classification System); However, the moment you try to weasel it out of that context for other purposes... it immediately becomes a Begging The Question Fallacy from the Black Lagoon Rubber Ruler. regards

Then why did you explicitly mention it 3 TIMES? Yea you should if the response was legitimate; otherwise, your intellectual honesty and commitment to 'a priori' adherence's in the face of Prima Facie contrary evidence come into question. Appreciate you admitting to it AGAIN, it's a Begging The Question Fallacy from the Black Lagoon and a Rubber Ruler... as explicitly explained and illustrated, repeatedly. Yes, it's called: Change in Allele Frequency. It's not vociferous, it's called a simple request for the SUBSTANTIATION of Scientific Claims... a. Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...? b. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a REAL Scientific Theory...? c. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...? d. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...? Ya see this ^^^^^, this is "SCIENCE"! Now... you have been confronted with this Numerous Times and have WHOLESALE DODGED it each time. If you fail to provide this basic pedigree information, every appeal to 'evolution' is a... Fairytale "Just So" Story. K? So in conclusion, your entire argument "Dish" is a Main Course Fairytale ('evolution')...decorated with a Begging The Question Fallacy from the Black Lagoon Rubber Ruler ('Species') Garnish. regards