Play online chess!

Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
From	Message
coram_deo 21-Nov-21, 13:21	From FIAT LUX III’s mission statement: <<we strive at fact, the truth, and high quality.>> From that club’s Rittenhouse thread, posted 11/21/21: <<We all agree that miniskirts are not an invitation to rape. I happen to really like them, and feel that comely women can be encouraged to wear them without fear of assault. Now suppose that instead of a miniskirt, the woman dons a clear plastic cat suit, pulls a condom out of her purse and begins licking it aggressively while administering erotic massage. STILL not an invitation to rape, but her actions are now in a slightly altered context. Especially if instead of a public street she has chosen to visit a popular S&M dungeon. This is Rittenhouse. Instead of a licking a condom he waved an AR15. Instead of grabbing crotches he provoked demonstrators by threatening them, slaughtering two and maiming a third, MAGA.>> From GameKnot’s Rules of Conduct: “You may not use any sexually explicit, vulgar, obscene, rude, harmful, disturbing, threatening, abusive, defamatory, hateful, inflammatory, racially or ethnically offensive language and/or images. Please keep everything PG-13. No exceptions for abbreviated or misspelled words with clear intended meaning.”
coram_deo 21-Nov-21, 13:26	I believe the person who wrote the above post is an atheist (or pantheist if he believes in the earth goddess) so the rules don’t apply to him. Let a Christian write a post like that (not that one would) and the atheists would sprain their fingers hitting the report abuse button.
coram_deo 21-Nov-21, 16:48	<<Question Would Kyle have had reason to kill either of these men had he not carried an AR-15 to this protest?>> No way of knowing. But here’s a question for you: Would Kyle have been at that protest/riot if police had not been told to stand down? And another: Who told police to stand down and why? And another: Didn’t the lack of a police presence at the protest encourage rioting and violence? And another: If people wanted to protest in your neighborhood and police were told to stand down, how would you protect your property? And another: Did you know Rittenhouse wasn’t the only one carrying a gun at the protest? I believe one of the men Rittenhouse shot was carrying a gun - because he admitted in court that he pointed it at Rittenhouse right before Rittenhouse shot him!
coram_deo 21-Nov-21, 16:51	Oh and one more… If everything that happened in Kenosha, Wisc. were exactly the same *except* Rittenhouse was a liberal at a protest of anti-abortion activists, would you be defending Rittenhouse and celebrating his acquittal? You and I both know you would. Moral relativism is evil, my friend.
coram_deo 22-Nov-21, 21:38	<<I think the fundamental reason for 'creationism' is the belief that evolution theory and abiogenesis theories somehow contradict religion (Christianity, Islam, etc). It just does not.>> It absolutely contradicts Genesis 1 and 2 (and Genesis is an accepted holy text in Judaism, Christianity and Islam,) and you’ve been shown why several times. I’ve cited verses from Genesis and asked you how those verses could be symbolically interpreted to align with the theory of evolution, but you ignored my query and instead chose to repeat your tired, false mantra - much as you have repeated your tired, false mantra that Christians who don’t support the theory of evolution are a tiny or “vanishingly small” minority. You’ve been shown how that’s a false statement at least twice - and by one of your own club members! - and yet you continue to repeat it. You’re just not honest on the subject of the theory of evolution and that’s why it’s pointless to engage in a debate with you. You ignore refutations of your positions and then continue repeating false statements - as if repeating them often enough will make them true. <<Evolution theory is a THEORY, not fact, nor a religion!>> It is a religion because very little evidence exists to support it and it does not follow the Scientific Method. There is more evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ than there is for Darwin’s preposterous notion that one species can turn into another and another and another and another by blind chance. It’s ridiculous nonsense and anyone who’s investigated it and who’s not desperately trying to justify his or her atheism knows it. <<There are several difficult parts of it, all of which have been given reasonable solutions (partial hypotheses).>> Really? Orphan genes? The lack of pre-Cambrian fossils? The mathematical impossibility of the complexity of life we see today arising from random mutations (nearly all of which are detrimental or neutral to an organism?) I could cite more. <<This theory is 'alive' (as all serious science is)>> It’s neither alive (as far as credibility) and certainly is not “serious science.” <<and is constantly being tested and amended (like all scientific theories).>> It’s constantly having to be “amended” because so much evidence contradicts it. You guys have to twist yourselves into pretzels to keep that theory from being thrown on the rubbish heap where it belongs. <<It is quite a reasonable theory, which is not at all the same as saying I believe in it (as belief in a religion).>> You claimed very recently Ernst Haeckel’s fraud with embryos was “a cool idea” because it supported Darwin’s theory and you refused to say what Haeckel did was a fraud, but instead said his fraudulent report on embryos had been “misinterpreted.” You’re not at all objective on this subject. <<It is alive precisely until it is scientifically refuted.>> It never will be because atheists cling to it like a life preserver in the ocean - anything to justify their atheism. <<Complete refutation is quite unlikely at this point since findings in its favour are so numerous and from so many independent fields,>> But of course no one can identify what those numerous findings in its favour are, just like no one can identify the number of transitional fossils. <<but amendments of details are quite likely as the research progresses.>> Sadly, the theory is always assumed to be correct, and contradictory evidence - and there’s a lot of it - has to be shoehorned into it, or explained away by unsupported speculation (such as high levels of oxygen caused the Cambrian explosion.) <<To say that evolution theory is not science can ony be done by individuals who do not understand what science is.>> It doesn’t follow the Scientific Method. Macroevolution has not been demonstrated by observation or experimentation. I posted a whole article on why the theory of evolution is not science and does not follow the Scientific Method. Read it here: m.gameknot.com
coram_deo 23-Nov-21, 00:15	<<The Scientific Method Some religious fanatics claim that the theory of evolution 'does not follow the Scientific Method', and refer to an article by Bob Ryan (of all people!)>> There you go with the “fanatic” smear again - and after I just proved you wrong (for the third or fourth time!) about how many Christians don’t believe in the theory of evolution. You just refuse to admit when you’re wrong - which is kind of surprising because you’re wrong so often! <<Fact: <Bob is an American with an MBA in Business Administration. He is a gentile who supports Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. He is a Christian Zionist who knows God is calling His chosen home as foretold in prophecy.> Wow, this guy must be competent to judge what science is and what it is not!>> You always attack someone’s credentials when you can’t refute the substance of what they’ve said or written. And why don’t you try to refute the substance of what they’ve said or written? Because you can’t! <<This is an excellent example of the level at which creationists argue.>> Again, you can’t refute the substance of what was written so you go the way of insults. Sad. <<Also, they make promises of returning to points where they were proven (I mean PROVEN!) wrong, and then those are conveniently forgotten.>> You haven’t “proven” anything - except that you cannot discuss or debate the theory of evolution because you’re not honest or objective when it comes to that subject. And the reason you’re not honest or objective on that subject is the theory of evolution is your religion and the only way you can rationalize that God does not exist. It’s so obvious!
coram_deo 23-Nov-21, 00:35	<<the geography of scientific illiteracy Referring to such an article by Bob Ruýan is not only ridiculous but also shows complete illiteracy of the scientific literature, which is belittled in a way that is a huge insult to decades and centuries of serious scientific work and the scientists behind it. But when you don't know better and when you are completely incompetent in judging, but at the same time sure of your self-proclaimed knowledge - that is the result. This is truly sad, and it is somewhat strange to notice that such religious fanaticism is quite active in the US, but hardly noticable in Europe. Can anyone explain this apparent geographical distribution?>> Again, you can’t refute the substance of what was written so you’re doing your usual tap dance around the substance and trying to change the subject. And you’re again using the “fanatic” smear despite the fact a member of your own club gave you stats showing your claim that Christians who don’t believe the theory of evolution are a “vanishingly small” minority is complete nonsense. Ask Christians who believe the theory of evolution how they reconcile that belief with the belief humans were made in the image of God. I’ve asked the two people in your club who identify as Christians that question and they refuse to answer it. The fact is, you can’t reconcile the Holy Bible (specifically Genesis 1 and 2) with the theory of evolution, but that’s not why I don’t believe the latter. I - and a growing number of scientists - reject the theory of evolution because of the lack of evidence for it and because of discoveries on the genetic level that reveal it for the fraud that it is. It’s not science and doesn’t follow the Scientific Method.
coram_deo 23-Nov-21, 00:53	<<This is has a funny side to it My comment on the scientific method was immediatey swallowed, 'hook, line and sinker' as BC often says so eloquently! About non-professionals talking about science: it is like having a taxi driver (who is good at his job) perform brain surgery, or a plumber delivering a baby with high forceps.>> Still tap dancing around the substance. Sad but also predictable. Here’s the article (again.) Which of his statements are wrong? “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is not Scientifically Valid FEB 27, 2020, 1:16 PM Those who believe macroevolution, which is speciation, do so with no scientific evidence to support their claims. They ridicule and demean anyone who disagrees with them and simply refer to Darwin’s Theory as a fact. Science does not allow for facts, only theories and laws. A scientific theory is based on what’s currently known and must make way for new theories as new evidence arises. Microevolution is defined as the change within a species or organism over a short period of time. Macroevolution is defined as a new species evolving from an already existing species, which would be genetically different. These are two very different things, but that doesn’t stop evolutionists from pointing to micro as evidence of macro. The existence of one does not provide evidence for the other. There is no shortage of evolutionists who point to microevolution as evidence for macroevolution. These same people never point to any actual evidence of speciation being observed by anyone. Species and organisms adapt to their environments, which has been observed, but species evolving into something genetically different has never been observed by anyone. Not only has macroevolution never been observed, it has never been replicated. When asked to cite a single source claiming otherwise, it tends to be met with the idea that I would never hold the same view for any other scientific theory. Those who make the claim have no familiarity with the Scientific Method, which lays out the steps required for a hypothesis to become a theory. There are 6 steps to the Scientific Method. It is the process used to explore observations and answer questions. Built within the process is the requirement to take new information into account and altering a given theory as needed. The first step is to make an observation about what is witnessed in its current state, not something believed to have happened at one point. Speciation has never been witnessed by anyone. Darwin looked at fossils and came up with a conclusion about something that happened without any evidence to support his claim. Fossils tell us a great deal about events that did occur, such as the Cambrian Explosion, which was a sudden arrival of life with no fossils showing anything predating the event. Darwin was already aware of the Cambrian Explosion, but believed other fossils would be found to prove his theory. No fossils have ever been found to explain how the Cambrian Explosion came into existence. The second step is to ask questions and gather information, which Darwin attempted to do, but rushed his work. Not once did he ask where the positive mutations were in nature, since he had already come up with his own conclusions. There has never been a positive mutation witnessed by anyone, which is needed for macroevolution to occur. The third step is to form a hypothesis about what has been observed and information received. Darwin made this his first step and simply ignored what should have been the first step. He believed speciation occurred before he ever set sail and was going to force the data to fit his belief. This is not the making of scientific advancement, but the act of writing science-fiction. The fourth step is to test the hypotheses and prediction in experiments that can be reproduced. No one in the scientific community has been able to reproduce speciation. Every experiment ends up with the species or organism remaining exactly what they started with on the genetic level. In 1988, Biologist Richard Lenski, started a project working with E. coli bacteria to prove macroevolution exists. Over the course of those 30 years, there were over 68,000 generations witnessed, which is the equivalent of 1,000,000 years to human beings. It is believed this is the amount of generations needed to witness speciation. The reason they had to discontinue the research was from a lack of evidence to support macroevolution. E. coli remained E. coli at the genetic level, which showed signs of microevolution only. The fifth step is to analyze the data and either accept or reject the hypothesis. Despite the constant failures to prove macroevolution exists, since it has never actually been observed and not once has anyone come close to replicating the results, there is a refusal to give up on the theory. If macroevolution were scientific, the hypothesis would have to be rejected due to a lack of evidence. The final step is to reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observation and theory. It is difficult to reproduce something that has never been witnessed in nature. If macroevolution were a valid theory, a 30 year study of E. coli would have shown something genetically different than E. coli. In order for something to be a valid scientific theory, it must be observed, and the results replicated. Without observation and replication, it is nothing more than science-fiction being sold as science fact. No matter how smart some of the evolutionists might be, they cannot show any actual evidence to support their irrational belief. Logic demands taking the evidence as it is, not as one wishes it would be. No theory can be free of criticism and remain in the realm of science. All legitimate scientific theories are based on what is known, but those who claim macroevolution to be fact do not hold to scientific objectivity.” blogs.timesofisrael.com
coram_deo 23-Nov-21, 01:05	<<Yet, it is mostly sad. Of course, it is also about keeping a secure distance so that the real facts cannot be forced upon you. Which is why the major bulls' manure is presented in a club with only one member, who both makes the questions and the answers to them.>> Huh? I have responded to numerous assertions made about the theory of evolution in your club. My club is open to people who love (make that, LOVE) the Holy Bible. Atheists don’t love the Holy Bible. You guys don’t want me in your club. If it anyone is keeping “a secure distance,” it’s you guys. Your club apparently has no criteria for membership except participation. My club has the criteria that one loves (make that LOVES) the Holy Bible. <<To be sure that his opinions cannot be directly (and easily) invalidated, he puts all opponents he is scared of on 'ignore'.>> I put you and Bob on ignore because I got tired of the harassing PMs. And how does putting someone on ignore prevent my opinions from being directly (and easily) invalidated? You’re talking nonsense.
coram_deo 23-Nov-21, 01:16	I said: <<<Ask Christians who believe the theory of evolution how they reconcile that belief with the belief humans were made in the image of God. I’ve asked the two people in your club who identify as Christians that question and they refuse to answer it.>>> stalhandske said: <<They have not, that is your wishful thinking!>> I asked them both publicly (in the forum and more than once) and they both declined to answer. <<The idea that 'humans were made in the image of God' is a statement and an idea that is in no way contrary to abiogenesis or evolution theories (or Big Bang theories for that matter).>> How so? How can humans have evolved from blind chance (random mutations and natural selection) and be made in the image of God? <<The ONLY obstacle between that conclusion, and yours, is your insistent interpretation of what the Bible says.>> It’s an interpretation shared by many Biblical scholars, but more importantly, by Jesus Christ and His disciples! <<And, whatever you say, the vast majority of present-day Christians accept evolution theory as a valid idea.>> Can you provide evidence for this statement? Your own club member provided evidence showing that in 2019, 60% of Protestants in the United States did not believe the theory of evolution and a third of Catholics in the U.S. did not believe it. What’s your evidence that “the vast majority of present-day Christians accept evolution theory as a valid idea?” This is the problem. You think your wishful thinking is the same as evidence. That’s why you believe the theory of evolution too!
coram_deo 23-Nov-21, 01:30	<<Now it is apparently thought that posting the light-weight article by Bob Ryan a second time will make the argument stronger! Ohh, why don't you post it a third time - may be I will be 'converted'?>> Still avoiding substance, I see 🙄 And I’m not trying to convert you. I don’t believe the theory of evolution and post reasons why, and then you guys go on the attack because the “earth goddess” is under attack. Worshipping creation instead of the Creator is as old as the Bible itself. But ask your club members this: What happens if/when humans colonize another planet? Is that like getting a divorce from the earth goddess? Or is it like committing adultery? Will atheists have two goddesses to worship if humans colonize another planet? Will you spend the holidays on alternating schedules - Thanksgiving with the earth goddess and Christmas with the new planet goddess?
coram_deo 23-Nov-21, 01:52	<<It is my advice not to react to information that we both know is invalid.>> Invalid information that hasn’t been refuted? How is it then invalid? <<Don't even expose yourself to such drivel,>> Drivel that hasn’t been refuted? How then is it drivel? <<negative energy,>> Criticizing the theory of evolution is negative energy? <<or taxing emotions;>> So criticizing the theory of evolution is both negative energy and taxing emotionally? You said a lot there, pardner, and I think without even realizing it. Science is supposed to be objective - there’s no positive or negative energy or taxing emotions unless someone is so emotionally invested in a theory that criticism of it is viewed as negative energy and taxing emotionally. And that’s the case with atheists and the theory of evolution. Would you guys get upset if I criticized a different scientific theory? I doubt it because you wouldn’t be emotionally invested in that theory and it wouldn’t be an indispensable part of your worldview. But you are right that you guys should avoid this subject because you can’t handle discussions on it.
coram_deo 23-Nov-21, 09:01	<<I agree that internet is filled with massive amounts of invalid theory, fake news, conjecture, miss interpretations, insufficient validation and many other flaws, but like Science and the scriptures and the media:>> You’re right *except* for including the Scriptures. The Scriptures (a/k/a the Holy Bible) are the inerrant, infallible and immutable Word of God! Yes, the Scriptures were written by men, but under the inspiration, guidance and control of God’s Holy Spirit. That’s why they’re inerrant, infallible and immutable 👍👍
coram_deo 23-Nov-21, 09:08	<<Internet research requires the ability to differentiate solid trustworthy sites from trash. Andrew just doesn't understand how to do that.>> Then how come you guys can’t refute the criticisms and flaws I post about the theory of evolution? Hmmm? All you do is insult and attack ‘cause you’ve got no substance. <<Not surprising when his only real source is a rewritten, multiply translated, second-hand mythology that he believes is literally true.>> Ah, there you go with your tired, false cliches. You forgot to say the Holy Bible was written by ignorant goat herders. What happened to that line? Did you finally retire that falsehood? <<With that subterranean bar, it’s unsurprising he’s never learned to filter his sources.>> More cheap insults. I thought you were supposed to be ignoring me. That didn’t last long. Come on, stick to what you say you’re going to do, my friend!
coram_deo 23-Nov-21, 09:13	<<When I’m traveling and some tout or salesman starts calling me ‘my friend,’ and I don’t know him, that’s a sleazeball. People you don’t like, who don’t like you, but address you as friend... these are dishonest people with no integrity. I won’t tolerate it. I look at them and suggest they get a friend, cause I’m not it. Such a sleazy, creepy, slimy lie too. I always feel like I need a shower after I hear that.>> You shouldn’t have to be provoked into taking a shower. A shower should be part of a personal hygiene program that you follow at least thrice weekly. Don’t take the saying, “Cleanliness is next to godliness” so literally. Atheists can embrace cleanliness too!
coram_deo 23-Nov-21, 09:25	Evolutionists’ debate rule #1 When you can’t refute an assertion with substance, attack the source. Evolutionists’ debate rule #2 If you can’t attack the source, attack the person citing the source. Evolutionists’ debate rule #3 If attacking the person citing the source doesn’t work, pretend to be outraged about something and storm out of the discussion. Or say further discussion is pointless. Then, when everyone’s forgotten your argument was completely busted, return to the discussion as though nothing happened.
coram_deo 23-Nov-21, 21:25	<<So, when even the most highly religious US Christians are asked the appropriate single question (see article), their vast majority accepts evolution - just like the case among Catholics, European Lutherans, and the English Church. Any other claim (as seen in a single-member club here), is just false information. But as we have learned over the years, that's the characteristic of this individual. All one needs to do is to look up the facts. Lazy people who are already convinced of the outcome won't do that.>> Sounds like the folks at that magazine are just massaging the questions to get the answers they want. It’s be interesting to see - instead of these convoluted, leading and tiered questions - what the results would be if American Christians were simply asked: Do you believe the theory of evolution? I believe that was much closer to the way the question was framed in the 2019 survey - cited by a member of your club! - that revealed 60% of Protestants in the United States and a third of Catholics in the U.S. reject the theory of evolution. Simple and direct questions are the way to get accurate results - not convoluted, tiered and leading questions that are designed to reach a certain result.
coram_deo 23-Nov-21, 21:46	<<It is interesting how the notion of a 'club' with a single member is a catching idea, much like the spread of covid-19.>> Sounds like you woke up on the wrong side of the bed, hombre. Instead of being crabby, why don’t you be thankful and grateful to God for all the blessings He has given you? Charles Darwin sure didn’t give ‘em to you! <<One club states: <A club for anyone and everyone who loves the Holy Bible> But if that is true, then the number of people who fulfil this great requirement is very small.>> Apparently so! But it’s also possible folks on GK who love the Holy Bible don’t feel like being harassed, attacked and lied about by morally-bankrupt atheists. Think that’s a possibility, pardner? <<As this does not seem to worry the founder, it would have seemed more appropriate to define the club as ace_of aces does with his brand new club "Solo-read only", defined to be around him alone.>> As far as I know, ace doesn’t accept applications to join his club. I do. But I don’t feel like debating the existence of God and the inerrancy/infallibility of Scripture in this club, which is why it’s only for people who believe in God and love the Holy Bible. <<Giving the previous output of ace, I am afraid I won't bother to read anything of that 'club'. >> That’s certainly your right. <<Is this phenomenon an example of increasing narcissism, or have the narcissists just become more active?>> Sounds like you’re starting yet another attack thread on me. Pretty sad. And I’m not really sure your idea of “anonymous narcissists” makes much sense. Isn’t that kind of like jumbo shrimp? But why do single-member clubs bother you? This isn’t the first time you’ve brought them up. Is it really the fact they’re single-member clubs that bothers you or is it because they post stuff you disagree with? And be honest - isn’t what really bothers you that one of those clubs (that’d be mine) exposes Darwin’s theory for the garbage that it is? That really rankles you, doesn’t it? And you wonder why I say the theory of evolution is the religion of atheists!
coram_deo 23-Nov-21, 22:46	<<I don't now how small the group of applicants is,>> There have been two. <<but I know of some who have applied and been rejected>> Some? I suspect you mean you know of one and that individual exclusively attacks Christians on this website; rewrites the Holy Bible as science fiction entertainment; said in a PM to me that he believed in the Virgin birth, miracles, atoning sacrificial death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and then said publicly he didn’t know who or what God is or what he believes. He also said he wasn’t sure if your comparison of me to Satan was appropriate. The other guy loves to push the boundaries of free speech and has been removed from more than a few clubs because of it. I’ve written about this at least three times. <<even though they certainly love the Holy Bible.>> They? Who is “they?” And I don’t think someone who rewrites the Holy Bible as science fiction entertainment and who mocks Biblical prophecies loves the Bible. <<Actually, I can say quite honestly that I too love the Holy Bible,>> Really? When was the last time you read it? <<but I cannot join the club for two reasons: I dont love the Bible the way I am supposed to,>> stalhandske, you’re just trying to pick a fight with me. I don’t know any atheist who loves the Bible. Stop being ridiculous. <<and I am ignored by the club owner anyway, so an application will automatically fail.>> And ignored for good reason. And last I checked, you and more than a few of your pals have me on ignore as well (only one of whom I wish would take me off ignore.) <<There you have the situation.>> Yep, there you have it. And I’m sure you and your moderators will fill your latest attack thread on me in short order. Have at it, boys! <<Decent exchange of thoughts? Balderdash!>> Where did that come from? Are you still groggy from a restless sleep?
coram_deo 23-Nov-21, 22:51	<<I Too Applied to join one of the Bible clubs. Not to worship any God but to speak about Love and Compassion, Gentleness and Humility, Honesty and Hope. I too was rejected.>> Sorry to hear that, but you didn’t apply to join my club. I’d accept you in a heartbeat. Even more so if I got to play a chess game with you.
coram_deo 24-Nov-21, 07:28	<<I too applied To Andrew’s ‘club’ but he’s scared of me. Thinks he might catch atheism>> This is completely false. You (zorroloco) never applied to my club (at least I never received notification that you did.) I’ve never known you to outright lie before. I’ve had two applications - one from Bob and the other from Isaac. That’s it. But I wouldn’t accept you if you did apply based on your history of trolling. And I could no more become an atheist than a butterfly could become a rhinoceros. You wouldn’t understand because you’ve never opened your mind and heart to the Lord and accepted the salvation that is found only through accepting and believing in Jesus Christ and in His Resurrection. I didn’t start this club for trolling and arguments and am not interested in either. But I’m certainly not going to let false statements stand.
Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

GameKnot: play chess online, chess clubs, Internet chess league, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.