Yet another biblical error

Originally posted by FabianFnas
There is a good sign when a poster knows that he is dead wrong. It is to try to divert the topic to something completely other thing with no obvious relevance.

You try to discuss the Najdorf variation, you try to pair two players into a game, earlier you hinted the Swedish role in WW2, you are desperately trying to do anything in order to avoid admitting that you are dead wrong.

You are dead wrong!

ok whatever, now will you play Scriabin?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok whatever, now will you play Scriabin?

Tell me first - are you willing to give up your stupid fundamentalistic denial and admit that there is actually errors in the bible, that all of the gospels are hearsay, that miracles are lovely fantasies, that evolution is a science and creationism is not, and that you will be more humble to other people in the future, if I win a game against scriabin?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Tell me first - are you willing to give up your stupid fundamentalistic denial and admit that there is actually errors in the bible, that all of the gospels are hearsay, that miracles are lovely fantasies, that evolution is a science and creationism is not, and that you will be more humble to other people in the future, if I win a game against scriabin?

No, i shall never ever zither admit that there are fundamental errors in the inspired word of God, for which there is no substantiating evidence, whatsoever.

Secondly i resent the word stupid, simply because one does not understand something does not make the object of our attachment stupid!

I will never admit that evolution is a science, for it cannot be subject to the scientific model, is based on utter postulation, full of dogma, is being constantly revised by circular reasoning, and has bred as much ignorance as any medieval or southern baptist church.

whether creationism is scientific or not, i cannot say. take for example a little article i was reading on the properties of feathers. The owl feather was featured. It was shown alongside a hawk feather, and it was found that the 'inherent design', of the owls feather was such that its trailing feathers have fringes which break up the sound waves that are generated as air flows over the top of the wing at the down stroke. The downy feathers found elsewhere on the owls body help absorb the remaining sound, giving it the capacity for stealth flight. Now this begs the question, are the owls noise reducing trailing feathers a product of design, or utter and complete chance. Please note it is not just a question of what is true, but what seems more plausible and reasonable. Blind chance or design! It takes a greater leap of faith to 'believe', that it was the product of a chance occurrence, the result of supposed zillions of years of adaptation.

and yes i will try to display more humility in the future, even if you shall just play Scriabin. In fact, i shall try to display it, even if you dont.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No, i shall never ever zither admit that there are fundamental errors in the inspired word of God, for which there is no substantiating evidence, whatsoever.

Secondly i resent the word stupid, simply because one does not understand something does not make the object of our attachment stupid!

I will never admit that evolution is a science, f ...[text shortened]... even if you shall just play Scriabin. In fact, i shall try to display it, even if you dont.

So you say your denial isn't stupid? Oh, that's a progress. Okay, your denial isn't stupid. But I like that you call it as denial. Fundamentalists are full of it! Denials I mean.

If you dons't put anything in the bet, why would I then play with scriabin?

Now, let skip the crap, and go to the core, the first posting of this thread:
"Jesus was buried in the tomb. According to Mark 16:1 Mary Magdale, Mary mother of James, and Salome were the 1st to visit when the sun had risen (Mark 16:2.) Yet according to John, only Mary Magdalene visited when it was yet dark (John 20:1) Again they can't both be right so obviously, the bible made another error."

If you don't have any opinion of this? Then why are you here in this thread at all? To pimp people together for a chess game?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
So you say your denial isn't stupid? Oh, that's a progress. Okay, your denial isn't stupid. But I like that you call it as denial. Fundamentalists are full of it! Denials I mean.

If you dons't put anything in the bet, why would I then play with scriabin?

Now, let skip the crap, and go to the core, the first posting of this thread:
"Jesus was buried ...[text shortened]... ? Then why are you here in this thread at all? To pimp people together for a chess game?

woah, not so fast my Nordic friend! You shall play Scriabin not for some personal vendetta against me, but for the honour of playing chess! he is the one that wants to play you, not I, therefore if you want to humble someone i suggest that you try the chessboard.

i noticed you had no comment on the owls design, obvious as it was.

i have already given my comments on this preposterous and fundamentally flawed argument. if there are twenty persons in a room, and the commentator goes away and records a conversation between two persons, does it mean that the others were not present? for thats what this feeble and ill conceived argument amounts to. simply because someone is not mentioned, does not mean that they were not present, Capiche?

let me put it in terms that you may understand. when we are playing chess and the board is rife with tactical shots and complications, and our opponent plays a innocuous and feeble move like a3, or h3, we are relieved and think to ourselves, 'what a puny move', thus it is the same as this type of argument, its the equivalent of playing a3, or h3, not much to fear.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
woah, not so fast my Nordic friend! You shall play Scriabin not for some personal vendetta against me, but for the honour of playing chess! he is the one that wants to play you, not I, therefore if you want to humble someone i suggest that you try the chessboard.

i noticed you had no comment on the owls design, obvious as it was.

i have alr ...[text shortened]... the same as this type of argument, its the equivalent of playing a3, or h3, not much to fear.

I will debate with your in this thread if it's about the topic at hand. Else it is over and out with you.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I will debate with your in this thread if it's about the topic at hand. Else it is over and out with you.

i have done my best, i shall report back to Scriabin, that at least i have tried, otherwise cya!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i have done my best, i shall report back to Scriabin, that at least i have tried, otherwise cya!

Whay are you running around the forums acting as a chess 'fixer'?

Has Scriabin forgot how to type?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Whay are you running around the forums acting as a chess 'fixer'?

Has Scriabin forgot how to type?

Scriabin hasn't shown any interest to play with me, so why would I promise some strange fundamentalist a game with another? I don't get it...

Unless if it some new strategy to avoid the topic of the thread. Like "If I bury my head in the sand, try to change topic, so noone will understand that I don't know what I'm talking about."

I'm over and out with this strange fundamentalist until he agrees to debate rather than pimping games...

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Whay are you running around the forums acting as a chess 'fixer'?

Has Scriabin forgot how to type?

My client does not wish to enter the forum arena, for he finds that it is not as civilised as he would like, therefore he asked me if i would 'broker', a game, seeing that i have no qualms. His instructions were simply to relate, that he would like to 'tear up the vineyard where the grapes of wrath are stored'. I had thought that if i could appeal to our friend, through his love of chess, then perhaps the game could take place, as it is, he seems suspicious, reluctant and keeps harping on about some biblical inconsistency as a pretence for this aversion. And i am not running around Noobster, he is only interested in playing Fabs and to my knowledge i have asked no one else.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Scriabin hasn't shown any interest to play with me, so why would I promise some strange fundamentalist a game with another? I don't get it...

Unless if it some new strategy to avoid the topic of the thread. Like "If I bury my head in the sand, try to change topic, so noone will understand that I don't know what I'm talking about."

I'm over and out with this strange fundamentalist until he agrees to debate rather than pimping games...

if he were to challenge you directly then you would accept, i was merely asked to test the waters! i have given my opinion of the thread topic, now twice, with argument to my satisfaction.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
My client does not wish to enter the forum arena, for he finds that it is not as civilised as he would like, therefore he asked me if i would 'broker', a game, seeing that i have no qualms. His instructions were simply to relate, that he would like to 'tear up the vineyard where the grapes of wrath are stored'. I had thought that if i could appeal ...[text shortened]... tant and keeps harping on about some biblical inconsistency as a pretence for this aversion.

Has he ever thought of sending a nice, polite personal message instead of sending some nutcase, fundamentalist, Scotsman off on an errand?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Has he ever thought of sending a nice, polite personal message instead of sending some nutcase, fundamentalist, Scotsman off on an errand?

No, no sound from scriabin. So the invitation is, as I suspected, a phony one from some strange fundamentalist.

Whenever a fundamentalist calls me a friend, then I'm suspicous. In this case I have forgotten why, but he surely has reminded me now.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Has he ever thought of sending a nice, polite personal message instead of sending some nutcase, fundamentalist, Scotsman off on an errand?

if that would work, then so be it, as it is, i think that he harboured the idea that because we post in the same forum, Fabs and I, that we were friends and had some type of rapport, if only he had realised that i state incontrovertible truths borne from my very soul as one would pluck diamonds from the depths of the earth only after much exertion, and receive naught but insults in return, but its a living.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
No, no sound from scriabin. So the invitation is, as I suspected, a phony one from some strange fundamentalist.

Whenever a fundamentalist calls me a friend, then I'm suspicous. In this case I have forgotten why, but he surely has reminded me now.

when you are challenged you shall publicly retract this statement!