|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 566 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Dec-01-16
 | | OhioChessFan:
User: SpookUser: TheSpook User: Lucifer User: thebeast User: the beast User: 666 |
|
Dec-01-16
 | | chancho: User: jerseydevil User: boogieman |
|
Dec-01-16
| | OhioChessFan:
User: wowUser: Blue User: Link User: Apocalypse |
|
Dec-01-16
| | chancho: User: you User: bet User: cha |
|
| Dec-02-16 | | WinKing: <chessmoron> & <OCF> I will be sending out a flyer within the next few days advertising all of the prediction contests to the members for the upcoming London Chess Classic. Should be a great tournament! |
|
Dec-02-16
| | OhioChessFan: An open response to <Jonathan Sarfati> comments on his Chessforum that I decided to post here instead of his Chessforum: This is a forum, not a "chess page". Your header in your forum cites your profession and a link to a site that addresses those matters too. You chose the content of that header, so it seems odd not to want those matters discussed on that very same page. Your first response to <Jay> was surpisingly bombastic. How in the world is he supposed to know you expect him to search out all of your writings on any matter before asking you about them? I challenge you to show that post/response to 10 of your colleagues and ask them for an honest appraisal. I'd be shocked if even 1 of them agrees with how you handled it and that it's a reasonable expectation. And sure, "it's my page", and all, but if that's the best you got in how you deal with people, that sounds like a losing hand. I get being harsh with people, especially those you've dealt with in the past. I can be that way too, purposely, just read me on Rogoff, and I'm often amused by some of your snippy responses to people on creation.com, but I always am patient in a first encounter. I am reasonably sure I'm your biggest supporter on this site, and have talked you up massively out in the real world, but I have to say this was a disappointing experience. |
|
| Dec-02-16 | | optimal play: <OhioChessFan> Totally agree! In response to my own inquiries on his forum, Dr Sarfati was good enough to direct me to a number of links on his Creation Ministries website,
although I got the message loud and clear that he wasn't interested in discussing that particular topic at all! Anyway, I did read the links he provided for me and noted that he and his colleagues are pretty adamant about the universe only being 6,000 years old. For example...
<What about different dates for creation?> <Many people have come up with dates for creation, such as James Ussher (4004 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC), Gerhard Hasel (4178 BC), and Isaac Newton (~4000 BC). Additionally, there are various chronologies competing with each other today (though all with the same ballpark outcome) which would be more precise than this article, but also rely on assumptions that must come from a particular interpretation of the text. It is not the purpose of this article to choose any particular one of these chronologies, but rather to show how the plain interpretation of Scripture gives a straightforward chronology that leads us to believe the world is around 6,000 years old, regardless of which of these other chronological frameworks one uses.> http://creation.com/6000-years
This seems to rule out your own estimate of 10,000 to 11,000 years?! Although there's probably not much point in you discussing this with Dr Sarfati since he'll likely just give you the same short shrift by posting a couple of links for you to read and then tell you to get lost! Anyway, I know your own forum is reserved for game predictions and blue links so I won't take up anymore space here. All the best. |
|
Dec-02-16
| | OhioChessFan: I would say rather I don't rule out up to 11,000 years. I am not persuaded that Genesis 11 is as clear cut as Genesis 5 in lifespans and direct sons of. The language is different, which makes me sit up and take notice. Regardless, I would agree with Jonathan that the language of Genesis 1 and 2 indicates a young earth, a few thousand years old, and reject out of hand everything I've read that would suggest otherwise. I know you meant well, but your question asking if he had looked at that stuff was on par with asking Carlsen if he'd ever seen the Scandinavian. As far as pinpointing exact years, I think we need to be careful. If you count the number of generations from the exile to Jesus in Matthew 1, you might be surprised. I see nothing wrong with a little poetic license in that regard and think it's possible something similar is going on in Genesis. Anyway, feel free to post any time. I slightly prefer people not to post during contests but that is fine too. |
|
| Dec-03-16 | | optimal play: <OhioChessFan: I would say rather I don't rule out up to 11,000 years.> It's a bit curious that biblical literalists insist on a "young-earth" based on the bibical text, but can't agree amongst themselves the age of this young-earth!? I mean, even that excerpt I copied and pasted acknowledges various disagreements surrounding the estimate of 6,000 years, so by comparison 11,000 years must be totally out of the ballpark! Do you see what I mean?
The biblical text is supposed to dispel any confusion, but instead just adds to it!? By contrast, a purely scientific estimate doesn't call into question the biblical text. <I am not persuaded that Genesis 11 is as clear cut as Genesis 5 in lifespans and direct sons of. The language is different, which makes me sit up and take notice.> But how could that be if Moses is the same author? <Regardless, I would agree with Jonathan that the language of Genesis 1 and 2 indicates a young earth, a few thousand years old, and reject out of hand everything I've read that would suggest otherwise.> Reject out of hand?
At least I was prepared to listen to Dr Sarfati even though all he did was give me a couple of links and show me the door! <I know you meant well, but your question asking if he had looked at that stuff was on par with asking Carlsen if he'd ever seen the Scandinavian.> If you mean my asking him about http://biologos.org/ I was interested in his opinion on a Christian viewpoint which was markedly different from his own in this matter. <As far as pinpointing exact years, I think we need to be careful. If you count the number of generations from the exile to Jesus in Matthew 1, you might be surprised.> Yes, that's a good point!
Matthew seems more interested in the symbolism of three groups of fourteen than in an exact genealogical record of Jesus. And of course Luke's genealogy is totally different, but that's another issue altogether! <I see nothing wrong with a little poetic license in that regard and think it's possible something similar is going on in Genesis.> Well then would you necessarily see anything wrong with a LOT of poetic license? <Anyway, feel free to post any time. I slightly prefer people not to post during contests but that is fine too.> I tried to post my entire response just in blue link but couldn't find all the words! :) |
|
| Dec-03-16 | | Colonel Mortimer: <The biblical text is supposed to dispel any confusion, but instead just adds to it!?> The Bible was written by several human authors, and borrowed on previous myths from the ancient world. It's no mystery why it should contain so many contradictions. |
|
| Dec-03-16 | | optimal play: <Colonel Mortimer: blah blah blah ...> So typical!
No matter how bad the Islamic atrocities get there's nary word from you, but any opportunity to criticise Christianity or the Bible and you can't wait to jump in! Your overt double-standards have left you with zero credibility! Why don't you illuminate everybody with your erudition of the Koran? You're such a hypocrite!
Buzz off! |
|
| Dec-03-16 | | Colonel Mortimer: Where did I criticise the Bible? |
|
| Dec-03-16 | | whiteshark: User: KINGofMEMPHIS User: rocks User: aga User: nnnn User: exclam |
|
Dec-03-16
| | OhioChessFan: <Regardless, I would agree with Jonathan that the language of Genesis 1 and 2 indicates a young earth, a few thousand years old, and reject out of hand everything I've read that would suggest otherwise.> <Reject out of hand?
At least I was prepared to listen to Dr Sarfati even though all he did was give me a couple of links and show me the door!> I shouldn't have said reject out of hand. I have examined and am totally unpersuaded by that viewpoint. |
|
| Dec-03-16 | | playground player: I've been to Perth Amboy. It's terrible. Used to be nice, though. But that's what a few decades of Democrat government will do to your city. |
|
Dec-03-16
 | | Jonathan Sarfati: About the genealogies, I've answered that as well. In the last 10–20 years, most of the creationist organizations have moved away from gaps in the Genesis 5 and 11 timelines. Even if there were missing names, there is no missing time. Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born, so it's irrelevant if there are missing generations between them. Conversely, Matthew's genealogy has no time information, and he even tells us that he's been selective to pick three groups of 14 names. http://creation.com/biblical-chrono... |
|
Dec-03-16
| | Jonathan Sarfati: <OhioChessFan> imagine the reverse: a B-level club player I've never met comes onto creation.com, sees that I'm a chessplayer (and doesn't see that I'm a master), and wants to pick a fight with me about chess style, and wonders if I've ever heard of the Ruy López opening. |
|
| Dec-04-16 | | Big Pawn: < Jonathan Sarfati: <OhioChessFan> imagine the reverse: a B-level club player I've never met comes onto creation.com, sees that I'm a chessplayer (and doesn't see that I'm a master), and wants to pick a fight with me about chess style, and wonders if I've ever heard of the Ruy López opening.> Oh, an icky B-level "regular person" wasting this *very important person's* time is unthinkable, with him not knowing he's a <master> and all. How can one think he can discuss chess style with a master? And this pompous jerk is a <master> of creationism too. Didn't you guys read his forum? It says right there PhD! You see that?
<PhD>
That means, "Don't waste my time, oh average person" It means, "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM??" (Moe Greene voice). Man, I thought I was a jerk. I'm going to have to reassess myself! <ohio> and <optimal play>, you need to realize something. Just because <JS> brags on his CHESS PAGE that he's a PhD (did you know he is a PhD?) and that he's <WRITTEN BOOKS> on creationism and links to creation.com, hey, that doesn't mean he wants to talk about it! What in the WORLD would give you THAT idea?
Just put yourself in his shoes. Imagine for a moment that you are FORCED to interact with a NON PHD! WHOA!
Just let that sink in. |
|
Dec-04-16
| | OhioChessFan: I think this is an acceptable position:
< I am semi-open to discussions, but would prefer that people use that link so that I don't have to reinvent the wheel. > |
|
Dec-04-16
| | Jonathan Sarfati: <Big Pawn:> Not serious, as usual. It should have been clear that I was objecting to those who "want to pick a fight with me" without doing their homework. Get that? How could that have been clearer? Especially with the example I gave, of someone insinuating that I didn't understand something very basic about chess. If people have honest questions, I will try to answer honestly. Often it will be referring to articles I've written, hence "don't reinvent the wheel." If people are honestly searching, it's one thing, but not coming suddenly to my forum and posted basically "betcha can't answer this and have never even thought about it." |
|
Dec-05-16
| | Jonathan Sarfati: The other point so crassly missed was the difference between my hobby and my profession. In this chess forum, I treat chessplayers of all levels with much more courtesy than <Big Pawn> does. |
|
Dec-05-16
| | OhioChessFan: <chessmoron> are we on for London? |
|
| Dec-05-16 | | Big Pawn: <Jonathan Sarfati: <Big Pawn:> Not serious, as usual. It should have been clear that I was objecting to those who "want to pick a fight with me" without doing their homework. Get that?> You came off like a pompous jerk and treated good posters with zero respect and I'm talking about <ohio> and <optimal play>, and I don't care if they say it was okay. I happened to think you could have taken advantage of the opportunity to make some really great points, but instead you stuck your nose up in the air like a total jerk, talking about "don't confuse my hobbies with my work" and all that crap. You could be a jerk to so many people that deserve it on this site, but those guys are decent, God fearing guys with honest questions and good intentions. <If people are honestly searching, it's one thing, but not coming suddenly to my forum and posted basically "betcha can't answer this and have never even thought about it."> Yeah, I get that, I don't like it either, but thems the breaks if you are going to fight the good fight. Here's the bottom line. You expressed yourself exactly how you wanted and now I did the same exact thing. By the way, I'm not defending <ohio> and <optimal play> as they can defend themselves. I'm just responding to your statements on my own. I won't tie up <ohio's> forum any further on this. |
|
Dec-05-16
| | Jonathan Sarfati: <Big Pawn> is the one treating people with disrespect, and cheap psychologizing of my motives and absurd projections. Copying way too many atheopaths, it looks like. |
|
| Dec-05-16 | | YouRang: <By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”> - John 13:35 Does anyone else ever feel depressed that even a group of professing Christians speak with such resentment toward each other? How are we different from the world? The church is failing at its job folks. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 566 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
rreusser/...