GENESIS 22:17 / NOT A PROMISE GIVEN TO THE JEWS

IOW, lack of sites to the contrary is your evidence.Could it be this is because there is no refuting evidence ?You are assuming your preconceived bias is true, then when you find no links supporting your bias you conclude that this means the sites which support me are false.IOW, lack of refuting evidence is evidence that I am incorrect.Your theory is not even a theory but a dogmatic opinion based on secular worldview.My evidence remains.

The race card is played when a person wants to smear something they are infuriated by, in Ramoss case, it is the evidence confirming the Bible.The race card indicates total inability to refute the evidence, and is a validation of the evidence.Notice Ramoss makes the smear but fails to demonstrate it. He is the product of a politically correct world run by Satan.The race card is the refuge of the defeated.IOW, it is not allowed to prove the Bible correct lest you be lumped as a racist.Ramoss is playing for the crowd trying to get everyone to forget about the evidence.

Come on Willowtree - what place does that have in a serious debate?

ooops.. wrong linkThis message has been edited by ramoss, 08-15-2004 09:05 PM

Well, I was demonstrating that your sources are not scholarly sources, and resorting to them is the logical fallacy known as 'appeal to authority'.Aside from some writing from people who mainly are discredit, trying to come up with odd conclusions with the most twisting of some words, what physical evidence do you have of your cliams.As a matter of fact, the DNA evidence falsifies your conclusions. The British do not have their origins from the middle east. Some families in Wales acutally have been shown to have been there for 5000 years, because scientists have found people living in an area a 100% identical match to the mitochondria dna found in a 5000 year old tomb.With DNA analsyis, the origins and path of migrations can be accurately shown. The DNA evidence shows that claim is 100% false.

Quite the contrary.All of my sources are of the highest levels of academia.You are now really asserting that only sources which reflect your secular worldview to be scholarly.Your input still doesn't touch the evidence - equals a compliment to the evidence.The remainder of your post contains subjective opinions - still a compliment to my evidence and sources.

I missed the high-level evidence or source that provided that satan ran this politically correct world. Could you point it out to me?

What place does a race smear have in debate ?It is only vomited when a person is infuriated with the evidence and they cannot refute with evidence.Satan is invisible and can only be deduced by the effects of his presence, just like quantum mechanic particles.If my evidence is true then the unknown facts that the Celtic Nations are of Hebrew origin demonstrates the effects of Satan's presence.These hillbilly dismissals of racism reflect Satan perfectly.Satan's goal is to numb the world to the performance of God keeping His word for the expressed purpose of us not taking seriously the looming judgement of hell and the only way of escape - the gospel.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 08-16-2004 01:40 PM

So you do not despute all of the evidence I provided pertaining to the origin, meaning and symbolism of the Red Hand, the obvious descrepance between the Biblical account and the Coat of Arms and the clear evidence that the Red Hand has entirely different interpretations than your sources?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I would like to know several things.1) Your sources seem to be a very narrow type of theologist. COuld you please show me their credentials, adn why we should accept them2) Why are you using such ad homeinin attacks as 'hillbilly attitudes', and allusions to satan??

To equate "theologist" with narrow is narrow/subjective.What is "theologist" by the way ? The "their" being who exactly ? You are feigning ignorance concerning my point.The ignorance is feigned because you do not like my point.I suggest before you play a race card you evidence the serious charge.You played the race card and associated entities viewed as racists for the single purpose of avoiding the evidence, also known as a cheap shot.

By THEIR credentials, I mean your sources.Your use of the logical fallacy of diversion is noted. Your claims have not been backed up, and all you have done is use the logical fallacy of
"Appeal to Authority" to say 'These people said this'...

Who says macro-evolution is true ?Crank-artists who call themselves "theorists" because they have given up on evidence because it leads to God.The above is your narrow definition.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 08-17-2004 02:15 PM

All my claims have been provided with evidence, corroborating evidence, and source cite.Your input is whats called "arguing the man".This is a compliment to the evidence.All my sources are theists and their theism is based on the evidence.You want to assert that secular is the objective but in reality they are inferior and biased.You need to refute with evidence and source cite OR retreat into racist accusations which admit that you are bankrupt except in tabloid tactics.

quote:

---

The race card indicates total inability to refute the evidence, and is a validation of the evidence.

---

Accusing people of being controlled by Satan indicates your inability to refute the evidence and is validation of the truthfullness of other scholars.