As for me, the Bible says what it says and science needs to compromise with that. There is simply no room for aeons of time in the creation account that stands up to a plain reading of the Scriptures.

In any event, if someone wants to think me undecuated or unintelligent thereby, I am officially losing no sleep over it.

Perhaps you are looking for trouble, because you were an atheist "insider?">

This strikes my as a funny question. Is it your general view that when unbelievers look at Christianity, they are "looking for trouble"? This makes me wonder where you think believers come from.

~~~~~

<Which religion, "won you over?">

The essence of the term explains a fallacious attempt to win an argument.

That was not the case, Mr. Magniloquent. Just accept it and move on lest you become like <abdel>.

<ohio: OhioChessFan: <Jonathan> I have concluded that the more educated the person, particularly at the college level and up, the more likely the Christian is to abandon the truth of the Bible and seek to compromise with the claims of science. Why? Because they fear being labelled ignorant or something while in college and don't defend the faith once revealed. Whereupon the Science side appeals to such people as proof that the more educated/intelligent you are, the more likely you are to reject young earth creation!>

It is impossible to improve on this summary.

<DR LOL: He is also a liar,>

You should check your anger. I've lied about nothing. I merely expressed myself after reading your unnecessarily harsh remarks on your forum to posters that I am partial to.

Look <DR LOL>, you're becoming a bit unhinged here, going on about me being a liar and all that.

<difference between Insult and Ad Hominem>

Pay attention smarty pants and learn something from your new <uncle pawn>.

There is a difference between an insult and Ad Hominem.

<The term “ad hominem” is Latin, meaning “to the man”. It indicates that your argument is directed at the person making it, rather than at the argument proper.

merely insulting someone does not rise to the level of an ad hominem attack or fallacy. One must make the insult as a PREMISE of the argument, rather than as part of the CONCLUSION>

http://the-orbit.net/lousycanuck/20...

<'Ad hominem' refers to an argument style; it is an attempt to invalidate a claim, statement, or argument because of some personal characteristic of the person making the claim.

An insult is just an insult. An insult doesn't (by itself) aim to invalidate or refute a claim or argument, it just puts someone down.>

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-d...

<We are usually talking about the "ad hominem fallacy": Claiming something about the person making an argument doesn't make the argument right or wrong, and assuming it does is a fallacy.

It's not a fallacy if you don't make any claims about the argument.>

http://philosophy.stackexchange.com...

<An ad hominem is not the same as just any other insult. I see this happen a few times before on this site and else, an argument occurs, one guy insults the other, and the next person yells out "ad hominem"

Insults and ad hominems are both personal attacks, but an ad hominem is a personal attack disguised as an argument. An ad hominem takes the logic of an argument, and applies it to an insult.>

http://www.debate.org/forums/Debate...

<In a delicious twist of irony, many of these false accusations actually amount to genuine ad hominems themselves. Here's the typical pattern I have in mind: Person A makes an argument sprinkled with insults. Person B objects, "That's an ad hominem!", and refuses to address the substance of A's arguments.

The problem is that people commonly object to any form of insult as ad hominems. But this is mistaken. An ad hominem fallacy is when you reject your opponent's argument because of some characteristic of the advocate that is irrelevant to the content of the argument made.>

http://www.philosophyetc.net/2005/0...

A straw man is an argument that one sets up in place of the actual argument being put forth by his opponent, particularly, an argument that is easy to refute.

I've not proposed any arguments so I have not pushed a straw man. I have not attempted to refute your argument (you have none, you are just bickering) with ad hominem attacks, so you need to realize you were merely mocked.

How is it possible that you are so sloppy with these elementary philosophical terms?

<Defend that pawn if you want, but it should be obvious which one has resorted to abuse and dishonesty.>

I've resorted to correcting you, for free. Learn the difference between an insult and an ad hominem attack. Then learn what a straw man really is.

If you continue to carry on about these two terms, which you misused, then I will be the one grabbing the definitions from all of the top .edu sites on the internet, and you will be the one saying that me and all the top universities are wrong.

<entertainment and emotions>

It's not just the kids that are having their time wasted with these things. It's the church at large. Most people go to church for years and years and nothing changes in their lives. They are still angry, still resentful, still have messed up families, messed up kids, messed up relationships, unable to forgive certain people for certain things, unable to find peace and joy and so on.

People are not finding their minds renewed at church. They just go and do their time on Sunday. They learn to quote bible verses left and right, but they experience no real change. Pastors and other church leaders just get up and preach every Sunday and do not shepherd the people on a level that matters. It's all feel good stuff aimed at keeping congregations of mostly women coming back each week.

Almost 100% of those attending church ought to be heading for a total change of life and total change of understanding. This is not happening on any level at all.

Round 1 Friday 9 Dec

Aronian-Adams
Nakamura-So
Vachier-Lagrave-Giri
Caruana-Anand
Kramnik-Topalov

Round 2 Saturday 10 Dec

Kramnik-Aronian
Topalov-Caruana
Anand-Vachier-Lagrave
Giri-Nakamura
So-Adams

Round 3 Sunday 11 Dec

Aronian-So
Adams-Giri
Nakamura-Anand
Vachier-Lagrave-Topalov
Caruana-Kramnik

Round 4 Monday 12 Dec

Caruana-Aronian
Kramnik-Vachier-Lagrave
Topalov-Nakamura
Anand-Adams
Giri-So

Round 5 Tuesday 13 Dec

Aronian-Giri
So-Anand
Adams-Topalov
Nakamura-Kramnik
Vachier-Lagrave-Caruana

Rest Day
Wednesday 14 Dec

Round 6 Thursday 15 Dec

Vachier-Lagrave-Aronian
Caruana-Nakamura
Kramnik-Adams
Topalov-So
Anand-Giri

Round 7 Friday 16 Dec

Aronian-Anand
Giri-Topalov
So-Kramnik
Adams-Caruana
Nakamura-Vachier-Lagrave

Round 8 Saturday 17 Dec

Nakamura-Aronian
Vachier-Lagrave-Adams
Caruana-So
Kramnik-Giri
Topalov-Anand

Round 9 Sunday 18 Dec

Round 1:

This strikes my as a funny question.>

Yes, I find mirrors tend to do that.

<Is it your general view that when unbelievers look at Christianity, they are "looking for trouble"?>

More safety/ free pass.
Atheism is a type of religious, "safe-zone."

<Are you sure you don't want to risk making a guess?>

I'm sure you don't like to answer questions.

Of course, it could just be this:

Reach your goals of cyber fame and fortune in the London Chess Classic Moves Prediction Contest! Plot your strategy, study the player games and head to head results, flip a coin, throw darts, use a Ouija board, or whatever else you wish, and make your game and move selections. Be sure to visit User: golden executive for his Games Prediction Contest, where you don't need to guess the number of moves, just the game results. And also check out User: lostemperor for his Final Standings Contest, where you predict the order of finish.

The chess world took a collective breath after our stunning World Chess Championship Moves Prediction Contest, and are ready again to watch our expert predictors chase their dreams. The early betting line from Vegas runs thusly:

<WinKing> 3-1

<SwitchingQuylthulg> 3.14159-1

<alfamikewhiskey> 4-1

<wordfunph> 5-1

<offramp> 6-1

<GoldenExecutive> 6-1

<Penguincw> 7-1

<Karposian> if he shows up 7.001-1

<sea otter> 8-1

<chessmoron> 1000-1

<OhioChessFan> Snowball's Chance-1

Round 1
Aronian-Adams 1-0 50
Nakamura-So 1/2 44
Vachier-Lagrave-Giri 1/2 42
Caruana-Anand 1-0 44
Kramnik-Topalov 1/2 44

Round 2
Kramnik-Aronian 1/2 37
Topalov-Caruana 1/2 38
Anand-Vachier-Lagrave 1/2 43
Giri-Nakamura 1/2 46
So-Adams 1/2 46

Aronian - Adams 1/2 38
Nakamura - So 1/2 40
Vachier-Lagrave - Giri 1/2 41
Caruana - Anand 1/2 42
Kramnik - Topalov 1/2 41