Ragnarok

Semantic bullshit Duggles, semantic bullshit. Those old Hebrews wouldn't have been fooled. They would already be polishing their stones now. Like apples for teacher...

Seriously, it will be awfully funny to gloat about this. Won't be too long now. What's that magic date again? Sept something 2003? I gotta mark my calendar.

Douglas J. Bender

No, differences of meaning, Ragged, differences of meaning. "Prophecies" do not allow for "I think this might be the case", or "It seems very likely to me". Prophecies allow no ifs, ands, or buts. Try to discern the distinction, please.

And what about them young Hebrews?

Baloney. Those Hebrews would recognize that I have not given a prophecy, and thus would not treat it as such.

I very, very highly doubt that there will be any "gloating" going on about this, come September of 2003 (and the likely date would be the Feast of Trumpets for 2003, which is September 27 or 28). And, better than marking your calendar, why not repent and seek Jesus?


In Christ,

Douglas

Coragyps

And even better yet, someone assassinate the Royal Family of Spain, so the ol' Antichrist won't be around to help with the Tribulation.

Ragnarok

Rags, Ragged,... high fives to Scientia!!! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> We've finally dragged Dougie down to our level. He's making fun of screen names! At least most of us had the sense not to put their real names out there.

Dougie!!!!!

<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" /> <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" /> <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

In Christ (it's too dark to see),

Ragnarok

Principia

*high fives* Rags

*does a little dance* and...

LMAO

Douglas J. Bender

No, as I'm merely "responding in kind" - I'm not getting my "jollies" from such juvenile debating tactics.

Yes, most of you here certainly have the "courage of your convictions", and hide behind false names. What bravery and commitment.


In Christ,

Douglas

[ May 19, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender

This, from the same "Scientiae" who scurried away from the "Biblical Equations" thread when I proved he was wrong about taking the natural logarithm of a number with units recently. Brave and noble warrior, dance to your heart's content - just never show your face when you've been shown to be obnoxious and in error.


In Christ,

Douglas

Principia

Dougie:

In case you are unaware, I am under no obligation either to explain or to defend to you what those in the natural sciences know to be true. Your performance on this thread thoroughly demolished your credibility. Go ahead -- be as peevish and arrogant and ignorant as you want. Who cares anymore if you think you are right? Certainly not me.

Go and sell your equations and the ln(x) nonsense to the 4 sources I had provided you (names, URLs and locations have been provided). Let us know when you've succeeded, will you?

*does another little dance* and ROFLMAO

Scientiae

[ May 19, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender

I never said you, or anyone, was under any "obligation" to answer me yea or nay. But I've pointed out where your argument regarding the use of numbers with units in the natural logarithm is in error, Datheron has agreed that I've done so, and you have not shown your face in that thread since. At least I have the courage to admit when I'm wrong, Scientiae, as I've done in this thread.

Oh, and since when is it a requirement that someone be perfect before their opinions and reasoning are granted any "credibility"? And as I've said, the primary reason for my error regarding "isochron dating" was due to ardipithecus' lack of clarity in explaining that method. Hardly something for anyone to begin "crowing" over, as you are attempting to do.

Perhaps you could, in all your mathematical brilliance, provide a quick and clear explanation as to why an infinite sum of (1/t{i})Dt cannot be made of t{i} which have a particular unit. Should be simple enough, and would conclusively prove me wrong. I wonder, though, why you haven't yet done so on the "Biblical Equations" thread. Perhaps it's because you cannot, oh arrogant one.

In Christ,

Douglas

[ May 19, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

Principia

I already have (3 separate explanations), along with 4 other sources, including one MIT professor who wrote a textbook on dimensional analysis. It is you who's avoiding the facts. Go take up your argument with them. Once again, I have no obligation to defend this argument to you.

Scientiae

[ May 19, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>