Wehehell . . . Isn't that
SPECIAL ??? :bugeye:
Associating... Associating... I've got it: this is a double exposure. First you shot a view of the day room at Happy Hollow Hospice. Then you superimposed a shot of your favorite 1969 poster of Eric Clapton next to your bed right above the incense burner.
I said and I quote: the Hebrew flood myth was taken from the earlier Mesopotamian flood myth. If you have no facts or evidence in rebuttal then by default you admit that my statement is true and correct.
I have said: by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned
How quaint. So that explains your last several bans.
Think upon all your words posted here on this website...
How about you think upon just one of them:
Mesopotamia.
Expect a rebuttal commensurate with all you have said:
Yes I've been expecting a rebuttal to my statement that the Hebrew flood myth is taken from the earlier Mesopotamian flood myth. But since none has been forthcoming we must conclude that, by default, you have adopted my proposition. I understand why you are experiencing catharsis in the self portrait below.
For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged,
Man I hope so. I sure would hate for anyone to think I was a Thumper.
and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.
So basically what you're telling me is that Thumpers believe that size (and presumably color) matters. I did not know that.
Is this you at the British Museum just after you had seen the Babylonian tablets?
Don't worry. The tic will subside as the shock wears off.
Most people don't need to push a button to ignore someone, nor anounce they're ignoring someone.
Nor do people who agree unless they have something to add. Gee, I wonder why you posted here?
Maybe the zero responses to the content of your post would give you a hint about that ?
It suggests that bible thumpers have no idea how to deal with the tablets sitting in the British Museum. Do you?
No, i asked why you continue to reply to a thread when people are clearly not appreciative of your "contribution."
You mean bible thumpers are not appreciative of what scribes at the library of Ashurbanipal wrote onto clay tablets in the 7th century BCE. I would have to agree with you there.
I did not respond to the contents of your post(s) thus far because in my opinion they did not seem to contribute anything meaningfull to the discussion of this thread.
Evidence that the source material used in the OP is a fraud is not meaningful to you?
I'm beginning to see why you have nothing to add.
My opinion has not yet changed, on the contrary, you seem to be on some kind of crusade against "creationists" and thinking you're "at war" with them
You mean you didn't click on the link in the OP? You haven't heard of Ken Ham's Fred Flintstone museum? And you weren't aware that the First Crusade of the creationist war on science was the Scopes Monkey Trial? Well then just treat all of this as a news flash and we will give you a few moments to compose yourself.
If you look up and then down you will notice that neither Arne nor Photizo are in a position to lend you a crying towel.
It's cute how you talk about facts,
What's not very pretty is that you don't talk about them.
but your responses are dependent on your pre-defined view of those you're responding to.
I was responding to Arne. I was describing the subterfuge of introducing creationist propaganda in a thread that purports to want to use scientific and anthropological evidence. The only predefined views I have of Arne come from his admission a long time ago that he participated in a conspiracy to troll science boards. At first it seemed like he was seeking redemption but obviously he has been slipping.
I'll take your reluctance to admit or deny the Babylonian tablets as your default admission that my posts are true and correct.