web analytics

IT’S ALWAYS ABOUT THE JEWS

By Pete Moore On June 28th, 2020

Wow, I am so unsurprised that Black Lives Matter is still an anti-semitic organisation. Only chumps still believe that BLM is an anti-racist group. All of these ultra-left headbanger groups are the same. That all swim the same sewage. It always comes back to attacking the Jews and dragging down Western Civilisation.

194 Responses to “IT’S ALWAYS ABOUT THE JEWS”

  1. Well done to BLM for being honest about expressing a political viewpoint on the subject of Israel and the Palestinians.

  2. Fair play to them. Whatever their other policies maybe, they’re correct here.

  3. A good statement. Bravo BLM.

  4. yes hear hear
    its factually incorrect though I have been researching this as part of my
    ” Are the crazies in usa going for an armegddon play next week, whilst also giving trump a final chance to grab a win , by lighting the fire to a huge conflagration ” That one

    turns out that UN and EU leaders have made joint statements opposing annexations.
    and here’s one for you pete ( sorry t burst your bubble pal )
    the society of british jews has come out and opposed the annexaction
    ouch !
    i hear optrex is good for a string eye petem 🙂

  5. *stinging eye* , not string eye, d’oh

  6. kurt

    You think Pete is going to be ‘stung’ by the opinions of lefty politicians and a bunch of self hating commie British Jews ? 🙂

  7. I’d say he’s just disappointed at not getting the raction he was looking for Colm 🙂

  8. I think he got the reaction he expected, and he will shortly come on here to tell us all exactly what we deserve 🙂

  9. Being anti-Israel is still not being anti-Jewish, but never mind, keep repeating it.

  10. Black racism isn’t a new thing, and black racists have long hated Jews.

  11. BTW – My original comment was not specifically meant as a ringing endorsement of the BLM tweet – but also an acknowledgement that if they are going to send out wider political expressions then they must be seen as a political movement open to criticism and dissent and not to be shielded by claiming to be just a specific pressure group around the issue of police ill treatment of black people.

  12. Yes, black anti semitism, nothing to do with even more Israeli land grab expansionism.

    Yes, that must be it.

  13. Colm –

    Just to be clear, when these headbangers talk of Palestine they mean the pre-Israel Palestine. It broadly accords to the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Israel.

    That “Free Palestine” with which they finish the tweet hides a genocidal intent. It means “destroy Israel”.

    Socialist Worker Party front groups go by many different names. Each week we have “Stop the War”, “Rock against Racism”, Hope Not Hate” and now in vogue, “Black Lives Matter”. They cleverly adopt benign names to disguise their evil. But whatever the name the central aim remains unchanged, and that aim is the destruction of Israel.

  14. I remember Pete criticising Israeli landgrabbing in Palestine.

    Yes, the strength of anti-semitism among ATW’s right wing is sad.

  15. Anti-Zionism, Anti- Semitism Anti-Israeli-ism Anti- Occupationism, Anti-Imperialism … as my Jewish grandma told me, hey goy there’s too many Antis here 🙂

  16. That “Free Palestine” with which they finish the tweet hides a genocidal intent

    that insane paranoid racist interpretation of Free Palestine is the same mindset that says in deep south pre-1950’s, as regards black emaciation
    “They’re coming for our white woman ”
    A Hideous view

  17. I remember Pete criticising Israeli landgrabbing in Palestine.

    I did that.

    One can support Israel’s right to exist and not support its expansion into Palestinian lands. It’s a consequence of thinking for myself and not blindly sticking to political dogma.

    Looking at a few people here.

  18. petem if

    thinking for myself

    leads to this

    That “Free Palestine” with which they finish the tweet hides a genocidal intent

    you’re better off sticking with the political dogma
    you’re going backwards son !

  19. I agree with Pete’s line of thinking. “Free Palestine” means the destruction of the state of Israel. I do not support that. However, I also do NOT support Israeli annexation of the West Bank. The two thoughts aren’t mutually exclusive. Pete’s intellectually honest argument leaves open the possibility for a two state solution in the future, IMO.

  20. One can support Israel’s right to exist and not support its expansion into Palestinian lands

    What does that ambiguous statement mean? Israel under present borders? Withdrawl form Golan? Sinai? pre 67 borders? Demolition of Israeli settlements in WB?

    What?

  21. can’t agree with that Charles, that’s the aim of nutters like Hamas
    Free Palestine is a universal call for rights, equalities, some goddamn dignity for human beings- no more no less.
    Israel has a right to exist and flourish, its enshrined in 1948 . I’m pro Israel due to the Christian connection , but no extremist .
    True Christians also cry smash apartheid, and don’t absolve themselves from social justice !!

  22. Pete’s intellectually honest argument leaves open the possibility for a two state solution in the future, IMO.

    I’ve previously stated that IMO a two state solution is the preferred option. The problem is defining what a two-state solution means.

    – reparations for Palestinians who can prove they were dispossessed in 48
    – withdrawal to 67 Israel borders
    – unfettered internationally monitored access route between Gaza and the West Bank
    – East Jerusalem under Palestinian control

    Is my idea of a two-state solution.

  23. Paul –

    Israel needs to settle itself behind one continuous border. Keep the present border and bring WB outpost settlers into it.

    What does “Free Palestne” mean?

  24. Kurt

    Free Palestine sounds good, but the subtext of the person saying it is usually ” from the river to the sea.”

    Taking a crack at Paul’s question, if I may, if it were up to me, I would dismantle Israeli settlements in the WB. Israel should maintain a security presence in Golan and Gaza. Pre-67 borders are out, b/c they are not defensible.

  25. I don’t know what ‘Free Palestine’ means Pete although I suspect it’s aking to the two state solution I speak about above.

    Pre-67 borders are out, b/c they are not defensible.

    They are not defensible? The only thing it means is Israel withdrawing from Sinai, Golan and leaving the current Palestinian territories. I don’t see how shifting a border from one point to another makes the border any less defensible.

  26. I’m talking about that pat of the 67 border in the middle of Israel where the country was only 6 or 7 miles wide where the Arab armies threatened to split the country in two, if my dim memory serves. That’s what I meant.

    Other than the 67 border issue, I like your list of requirements for two states Paul. And the fact that both Pete and I as conservatives want to dismantle the WB settlements I think shows movement and an evolution of thought on “our side.”

  27. Israel is too strong militarily now to ever really be threatened by its neighbours and however the borders are delineated there really has to be 2 singular land masses completely separating Israel and Palestine – there cannot be a solution if it includes pockets of Israeli or Palestinian controlled territory surrounded by each others land.

  28. If you’re going by the ‘might is right’ doctrine Colm then expect more violence in the ME.

    The only problematic aspect of what you comment on above would be the seperation of Gaza and the WB.

  29. That’s true Colm. But it’s also a given that Israel would never return to pre-67 borders. And frankly, I don’t know what would make them desettle the WB, other than very strong US pressure. That won’t happen under either administration.

  30. Paul

    How am I going by the “might is right” doctrine ? I am just disagreeing with the view that a return to 1967 borders is a threat to Israel’s existence that’s all.

    I have also mentioned before although I agree it is outlandish and involves a large population movement – but why not a voluntary swap between Gaza and the West Bank settlments. Israel evacuates all those pockets of settlements, and the Palestinians and WB Israelis transfer between those 2 areas. Hey presto, two single sovereign land masses !

  31. paul

    1) let me persuade you of something
    after 1948 jews were expelled from all over the arab world, they were kicked out with nothing, they lost everything. and the thinking in the minds of many was that the pallies would be taken in and it would be like a straight swop. guess who betrayed this>
    yep the arab countries reneged and left the pallies in the shit, in refugee camps all over places like Beirut to rot .. and thence to use as a pretext for those nasty jews .

    So, that deals with right of refugees , the countries that kicked out the jews owe them big-time

    2) withdrawal to 1967 borders .. nope the whole of israel belongs to the jews, even arab scholars acknowlge its their land . sites in saudi like the mountain where moses received the 10 commandments ( yes its not in egypt ) , the locals know it was where the jews wandered for 40 years before going into the promised land via Jericho

    3) Gaza ‘ palestine comes from the original philistine, those that were at war with King David , and have been for millenia, its a hellhole, they should move them all out and go to the better places in the west bank .. i don’t knpw 100% , its negotiable, but its not a place for dignified living that’s for sure ..

    4) Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but even israel are not so insensitive as to want to grab the whole lot, so it looks like the best idea , east to Palestinians .

    one alternative, the Kurt plan 🙂
    is to have the whole of the territory , westbank , gaza, and Israel called just Israel
    and the citizens , arabs jews and the mixtures are all citizens , with equal status
    and as with ireland you can call yourself a palestian if you want , but your passport says Israel .. Lots of young pallies prefer this option as all the other options they’re asking for have got nowhere in 50 years and they’re pragmatic

    they ya go

  32. I’ll get me own coat mo mhac!

  33. interesting kurt. Your views on Israel are rather more esoteric than I thought they would be. You don’t adopt the traditional leftist attitude to the situation. Your one big happy Israeli family solution is a non starter though. Israel isn’t going to ever incorporate the entire Palestinian population within its borders and threaten the Jewish majority status of the State.

  34. prolly right colm , but if as a permanent solution many arab lands took some arabs, the populations would be closer to 4m jews, 4mill arabs-
    esoteric? yeah I’m really interested in the Exodus story, on a number of levels, and the research into where the 40 year wandering took place .. lots of evidence in west saudi after they crossed the red sea ( miracle at Nueiba ) . Even the elim wells are still there . as is the wonderful split rock with evidence of water , where moses split it .. its forking amazing stuff mate .. wayy too esoteric for ATW 😉

    https://youtu.be/M64dLexjg58 Rock of Horeb .. awesome

  35. How am I going by the “might is right” doctrine

    Apologies Cole, that should have been worded beter. I was referring to your reference of Israel’s military might which suggested a ‘we have what we hold’ mentality all too common where I come from. I may have misinterpreted it. The straight swap sounds interesting.

    Kurt, I’ll ponder on that.

    Charles, Na bi ag imacht. Tá fáilte romhat fan anseo, mo chara

  36. nite charles , good play today
    Bowie in concert here replay Glastonbury 2000, BBC2 – ahh the beeb
    and people slate it .. ( smh )

    ok paul .. got time,
    i expect the next few weeks lots will be happening as annexation rolls out ( or not )
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/west-bank-annexation/

    I’m hearing mixed messages from washington
    some say Trump is about to make a big announcement ,
    others hold that washington is cool on the idea .

  37. Paul

    GRMA, mo chara. Tá mé ag foghlaim na hÉireann. Cad é seo “imacht.”?

    Nite kurt!

  38. The verb to leave.

    Rud amháin Charles, tá ma ag foghlaim Gaelige.

    Gaelige is the noun for the language and na hÉireann is the preposition / noun compound ‘from Ireland’

    Seimi’s your man though, he’s a native speaker, (and my former teacher for a while).

  39. Thanks Paul. I have Rosetta Stone to try and get the pronunciation down. You can tell it’s an Indo European language. I just want to learn the pleasantries to be a good guest. Just enough to cause an international incident!

  40. Just enough to cause an international incident!

    Is maith liom do stil!

  41. 🙂

  42. When people like Pete and Allan talk about Britain for the British, they mean Britain without foreigners, blacks and Jews.

    When they talk about the supremacy of the white race, they certainly don’t think the white race includes Jews.

  43. Noel

    I think Allan would proudly and openly agree with that summarisation , but I honestly don’t think it reflects Pete Moore’s view. I think Pete would have no problem regarding Benjamin Disraeli as a Brit, Allan wouldn’t be able to see past his Jewish racial origin.

  44. Disraeli was never a religious Jew, and as far as I know converted to Christianity in later life. No doubt Allan will give us the lowdown on how this was all part of the plan!

  45. “yeah I’m really interested in the Exodus story, on a number of levels, and the research into where the 40 year wandering took place”

    The Exodus story almost certainly didn’t happen. It was written a millennium after it was supposed to happen. There is no evidence of Exodus whatsoever.

  46. Petr

    Yes, he wasn’t a religous Jew and I believe he was only twelve when his father converted to Anglicism – but we know that won’t get a pass from Allan 🙂

  47. One alternative, the Kurt plan

    I’ve pondered it Kurt and come to the conclusion that it’s a simplistic, naive screed skewed by your Christian belief in the Bible.

    After 1948 jews were expelled from all over the arab world, they were kicked out with nothing, they lost everything. and the thinking in the minds of many was that the pallies would be taken in and it would be like a straight swop. guess who betrayed this>
    yep the arab countries reneged and left the pallies in the shit, in refugee camps all over places like Beirut to rot .. and thence to use as a pretext for those nasty jews

    I’ve read similar claims about mass ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Protestants from the then Irish Free State to the newly formed state of Northern Ireland in the early 1920s. While there was occasional enmity towards Jews in Arab countries they had lived there for millennia prior to 1948. What changed in 1948?

    The thinking in the minds of many was that the pallies would be taken in and it would be like a straight swop. guess who betrayed this>
    yep the arab countries reneged and left the pallies in the shit, in refugee camps all over places like Beirut to rot .. and thence to use as a pretext for those nasty jews

    ‘The thinking in the minds of many?’ The creation of a new state dispossessing prior inhabitants of their properties and lands and creating massive population movements of refugees was thought of as ‘a straight swop?’ by whom?

    The massive intake of Palestinian refugees into places like the Lebanon, Syria & Jordan wasn’t actually a result of Zionism creating new state but was actually a dastardly plan by those Arab countries to use as ‘a pretext for those nasty jews?’

    Absolutely bizarre interpretation of history.

  48. The Exodus story almost certainly didn’t happen. It was written a millennium after it was supposed to happen. There is no evidence of Exodus whatsoever.

    seamus have you an open mind on the subject
    as you are in law, I regard myself as an expert in the field

    this is as good as any place to start

    https://patternsofevidence.com/exodus-film/ that’s scholarly

    but even the old daily express has a story on joesph’s tomb

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1281783/egypt-bible-discovery-joseph-coat-jacob-jesus-christ-tomb-goshen-nile-god-proof-spt

    discoveries are being made all the time by archaeology, I keep up to date

    Its one of my hobbies 🙂

  49. paul, as you like, but research the young palestinians, they are most definitely open to citizenship, in a new Israel . That way they can get passes, passports, and a hole host of things you get with citizenship like access to universities .. I’m just the messenger, pls don’t shoot me 😉

  50. //nope the whole of israel belongs to the jews, even arab scholars acknowlge its their land . sites in saudi like the mountain where moses received the 10 commandments ( yes its not in egypt ) , the locals know it was where the jews wandered for 40 years before going into the promised land//

    That doesn’t even make sense according to your own madness, kurt. If the Israelites wandered though Sinai (or “Saudi” as you’d have it) “before going into the promised land”, then obviously Sinai is not part of that land.

    Even apart from your logical and geographical confusion, it’s bizarre to claim that because people lived on a certain land almost 3000 years ago (or didn’t), it must naturally belong to them today. If that principle were followed, the Indians would take over all of America and return the various populations to their origins in northern and southern Europe and the blacks to Africa. How would your support for BLM stand then, kurt. It would of course also mean the Celts and everybody who descended from them and those who came after would all have to leave Ireland.
    And why is that magical 3000 or 2000 years ago the magical era? Why not 1000 or 4000 thousand years ago?

    What country do you live in, Kurt? How about the 3000-year-ago inhabitants kick you out now?

    Lastly, even if you want to base your argument on Blut-und-Boden as Israeli jealots do, and ignore property rights, rights of residence the rule of law and Christian justice, there is still plenty of evidence and a lot of historical common sense to the argument that very many Palestinians today have a stronger ancient Hebrew lineage than probably a majority of contemporary Jews in Israel do.

  51. Paul, as you like, but research the young palestinians, they are most definitely open to citizenship, in a new Israel

    But will the ‘new Israel’ be open to it? Israeli Arab Jew Rachel Shabi:

    https://gulfnews.com/entertainment/books/the-loss-of-inheritance-1.563049

  52. To grasp the depth of the injustice visited upon innocent Palestinian civilians in 1948, you could do a lot worse than reading the first chapter of Robert Fisk’s Pity The Nation.

  53. A superb read Petr.

  54. noel, not being funny but you have a huge knowledge deficit on the subject

    Finding the Mountain of Moses: The Real Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjrxHqNy5CQ

    biblican scholars still haven’t caught up that the real Mt.Sinai is in Saudi
    so there is the problem of them having closed minds..

    the ordinary punter who researches this stuff is wayy wayy ahead

    I’m afraid your approach is the same as with the evidence on the 3-D imaging on the Turin Shroud .. and now you’ve played the man and thrown in the “madness” slur
    I can’t help you further ..
    seamus might be open to looking a fresh

    Good day to you ..

  55. “discoveries are being made all the time by archaeology, I keep up to date”

    As do I. Egyptology is a major interest of mine. And there is no evidence of Jewish settlement in Egypt at the time of the Exodus. There is also no evidence of population collapse. In fact the Pharaoh of the Exodus has been most readily identified as Rameses the Great. It was Ancient Egypt at its zenith.

    Egyptian sources, which aren’t great on the matter, would indicate that there were around 250,000 slaves in Egypt at the time (of all races), while the Exodus story indicates that there were 600,000 adult men, nevermind women and children. The total Jewish population in the Exodus would likely have been greater than the entire total population of Egypt at the time. The loss of that workforce would have been devastating, nevermind when coupled with the death of the firstborn of every Egyptian family. That sort of population collapse would have led to the collapse of the Egyptian state. Certainly it wouldn’t have resulted in Egypt going from strength to strength.

  56. Spot on Noel – I have always found this idea of Biblical land rights applying to the modern world to be ridiculous. A completely ludicrous way of determining how people today should be allocated residence. Having said that – we also have to be realistic – Israel exists , it has a special status as a Jewish nation and that will not change. Hundreds of thousands of non Jewish Palestinians are not going to be allowed to return to live in Israel and become Israeli citizens and so, sadly but truthfully, only a full physical but singular separation of lands and peoples (gaza and West bank settlements) will provide the rights and sovereignty Jewish and Palestinians are entitled to.

  57. “Finding the Mountain of Moses: The Real Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia”

    So your “evidence” isn’t respected archeologists or biblical scholars, but a YouTube documentary made by the far-right Clarion Fund? Are you stoned?

  58. kurt, on June 29th, 2020 at 11:16 AM Said:
    noel, not being funny but you have a huge knowledge deficit on the subject

    On the contrary, Kurt..

  59. A YouTube documentary made by the far-right Clarion Fund

    The Clarion Project? Oh dear.

  60. Kurt remains me of an old hippy neighbor of old. He used to come in and play music in our home. He would tell (apocryphal) stories, sing, and generally entertain everyone. Whenever the discussion turned to things material, he would invariably be all over the place, but at the same time he couldn’t help himself. He would approach political and societal questions with spirituality (in the zaniest sense), half-baked mysticism, and poorly remembered ancient history. When your approach is as confused and muddled up as that, your conclusions are inevitably going to be dog-sh¦t.

  61. The BLM movement could have examples of antisemitism. This tweet isn’t one of them.

  62. Indeed Mahons. There is plenty of anti-Semitism in the world; some subtle, some not so subtle. But his is plainly not it.

  63. Its not ant-Semitic but it does veer away from the specific aims of protecting the safety of Black Americans in relation to interaction with the police which BLM was founded on.

  64. He’s multi-tasking.

  65. He ?

  66. Whoever issued the tweet. In all honesty the micro analysis of an isolated tweet to make broad accusations is part of the dumbing down of the twitter age.

  67. Commenting on political opinions expressed by an organisation is ‘dumbing down’ ?

  68. Colm — Israel is a racist endevour. It’s not a shock that an anti-racist activist group takes a strong position here.

  69. I am not objecting to them holding a position on it. But they must expect criticism as well as praise if they adopt positions on wider political and global issues.

  70. Twitter has contributed greatly to the dumbing down. It is little better than a slogan on a bumper sticker.

  71. As someone who has used Twitter and given it up, yes it is god awful, and has worsened over time.

    Instead of presenting a counter-argument people will reply with things like:

    “That’s not the take.”

    “That’s not it.”

    etc.

  72. Twitter is the gateway of every crackpot & mooncat on the globe. It has some seriously nasty, vile and sinister people on it too.

    It is however great for breaking news.

  73. Yes but even the speedy desire to report BREAKING NEWS quicker than anyone else also fuels a lot of fakeness, premature and false reporting and consequently the usual “they are hiding the truth” claims when more serious news organisations don’t instantly report the same unverified stories as people are reading on Twitter.

  74. There is a suffocating group think on Twitter which I find really off putting. It is like school where you get banished from the ‘cool gang’ for having the ‘wrong take’ on something. There’s lots of good in there, but I found on the whole it annoyed me more than anything, and was a massive waste of time.

  75. Yes Colm, what I mean however is that respected individual reporters and sources will often have Twitter as a first point of contact before it goes to wider news sites etc.

  76. Fair enough Paul , I must admit I virtually never look at twitter – I might only occasionally do so if someone here links to something on there. My main experience of twitter ‘breaking news’ is when certain individuals here on ATW mention a violent or terrorist suspected incident they are just reading about on Twitter and they then come on to ATW to slyly speculate that “I can’t see anything on the commie BBC about it. I wonder why ? ” 🙂

  77. I will look at Twitter maybe once every couple of years

    And when I do, I realize what a completely awful platform it is

    Yes, in politics It is almost always people grunting their own position, views becoming ever more entrenched every day

  78. It eats your time, Phantom. That’s the main reason I stopped, and I also don’t like to go to bed angry.

    Since lockdown I have made an effort to buy a newspaper more, and take the time to sit and read in peace, with a nice coffee. Better to spend time that way than scrolling and tutting to oneself.

  79. Yes, in politics It is almost always people grunting their own position, views becoming ever more entrenched every day

    Quite similar to ATW then!

  80. Yes

    If you follow a number of people / publications you get bombarded by the constant updates.

    Newspapers are a good thing. I don’t know if you read the Irish Times, but I find it one of the better English language papers to be found anywhere.

  81. I do read the Irish Times. For its many faults, it is the only Irish newspaper worth reading and has some great content.

    I also subscribe to the London Review of Books (which drops in my postbox fortnightly) and a few journals that drop quarterly. I still prefer the printed word to reading on a screen, even though I do plenty of both.

  82. When they talk about the supremacy of the white race, they certainly don’t think the white race includes Jews.

    When I talk about supremacy of the white race, I only talk of lands where whites should be supreme and demographically secure – and the same goes for blacks, orientals and all racial groups. If whites were menacing the demographic integrity of blacks in Africa, ATWers would be screaming yet the threats to white demographics in our own lands are a ‘conspiracy theory’ even though the evidence of demographic destruction is beyond dispute.

    Jews themselves don’t believe themselves to be white:

    Morgan Freeman on Black History Month

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zkka24Cu2w

    “I’m not white, I’m jewish”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkCuiEEMUVc

    But they can be ‘fellow whites’ when they intend doing damage……

  83. I knew Allan wouldn’t be able to resist joining a thread with this title 🙂

  84. Those old anti Semites at it again:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/28/jewish-groups-and-mps-condemn-nigel-farage-for-antisemitic-dog-whistles

  85. The loss of that workforce would have been devastating, nevermind when coupled with the death of the firstborn of every Egyptian family

    Moses said Let my people go and after 10 plagues , the pharaoh did , then chased them to Neweiba where the miracle took place. They’ve even found chariots wheels in that area that date to the precise time of the chariots built at the time. The bible story is real history, the exodus happened . archaeology backs it up .. but its too much of a paradigm shift for you , I understand that ..

  86. “archaeology backs it up”

    No, pseudo history documentaries by far-right racists backs it up. Actual archeology is clear that it is almost certainly fiction.

    “but its too much of a paradigm shift for you , I understand that ..”

    It is bad enough being a sanctimonious cunt when you are right, it’s just down right pathetic to be a sanctimonious cunt when you are wrong.

  87. They’ve even found chariots wheels in that area that date to the precise time of the chariots built at the time.

    If they were the ones built at that time, then of course they would be dated to that exact time, surely? 🙂

  88. tut tut seamus you’re really triggered man and stirred up, there’s no need for that language,
    its completely unwarranted .. you should apologise ..
    and you talk about the merits of wanting to debate and criticise others for playing the man
    aren’t you ATW biggest hypocrite ?

  89. “its completely unwarranted”

    It was warranted. If you don’t want to be called a sanctimonious cunt then don’t be a sanctimonious cunt. It’s not complicated.

    “criticise others for playing the man”

    Not sure where I criticised anyone for playing the man…

  90. seimi in the red sea , gold doesn’t degrade by salt water , leeme show ya

    http://www.arkdiscovery.com/red_sea_crossing.htm

    scroll down to the bottom, this is ron wyatt’s site., he was a kind of indina jones

    God has a sense of humour and allowed Ron to find all the sites that prove the whole thing

    “At that time Jesus prayed this prayer: “O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding these things from those who think themselves wise and clever, and for revealing them to the childlike.”

  91. “he was a kind of indina jones”

    You are correct on that. Ron Wyatt is like Indiana Jones in that all his discoveries are fictional.

  92. kurt, I was just pointing out that your sentence means the same thing as me saying, “I went out in the rain and guess what? I got wet! Coincidence?” 🙂

  93. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt

    Wyatt’s work is typically cited by fundamentalists as proof that events in the Bible actually occurred, but even this is only attempted by the terminally ignorant or stupid. When Answers in Genesis (AIG) shies away from something, it’s a pretty good indicator that it’s broken on through to the other side of crazy.

  94. Noel –

    When people like Pete and Allan talk about Britain for the British, they mean Britain without foreigners, blacks and Jews.

    I don’t have anything against Jews.

    If the Fenians and James Connolly can declare “Ireland for the Irish” then an Irishman can’t object to a Briton declaring Britain for the British.

  95. Britain is for the British Pete. It’s an internationally recognised country and is administered by the British Government.

  96. It depends on how limiting the term British is. For example you will find few Irish people arguing that Seán Óg Ó hAilpín isn’t Irish. Would Seán Óg’s equivalent in Britain be seen as British by you?

  97. For example you will find few Irish people arguing that Seán Óg Ó hAilpín isn’t Irish.

    Everyone’s entitled to be wrong. He’s Fijian.

  98. I very strongly suspect Pete had to look Ó hAilpín up.

  99. So were England cheating when they fielded Matt le Tissier, Cyrille Regis, John barnes, raheem Sterling, Owen Hargreaves, Graeme Le Saux, Terry Butcher, John Salako and many more? None of them are English?

  100. The best quote ever from the legend that was Micheál Ó Muircheartaigh, worth re-posting here again:

    “Seán Óg Ó hAilpín: his father’s from Fermanagh, his mother’s from Fiji. Neither one a hurling stronghold.”

  101. “The best quote ever from the legend that was Micheál Ó Muircheartaigh”

    There are so many of them though.

    The stopwatch has stopped. It’s up to God and the referee now. The referee is Pat Horan. God is God.

    1-5 to 0-8. Well from Lapland to the Antarctic, that’s level scores in any man’s language.

    I’ve seen it all now, a Rabbitte chasing a Fox around Croke Park.

  102. Colm, on June 29th, 2020 at 5:14 PM Said:

    I knew Allan wouldn’t be able to resist joining a thread with this title 🙂

    Colm – you’ve made several comments on this thread whilst I just put in one comment as a correction to Noel. Do you agree that jews don’t consider themselves as white (except as ‘fellow whites’)?

    https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/fellow-white-people-arent-you-jewish

    Fellow White People, also known as (((dear white people))) or “Fellow Whites”, is a meme used to mock Jews who participated in this strange phenomenon where Jews pretend to be white to serve their political purposes

  103. There are so many of them though.

    So true.

    “Anthony Lynch, the Cork corner-back, will be the last person to let you down – his people are undertakers.”

    “Teddy McCarthy to Mick McCarthy, no relation, Mick McCarthy back to Teddy McCarthy, still no relation.”

    The man was a genius.

  104. “The loss of that workforce would have been devastating, nevermind when coupled with the death of the firstborn of every Egyptian family. That sort of population collapse would have led to the collapse of the Egyptian state.”

    I am shocked, shocked, to learn that scholars now tell us that the physically impossible and biologically implausible events detailed in Exodus did not in fact occur. If only there had been some way to predict this.

  105. Frank
    you might look up the word miracle, or just say you don’t believe in them
    or instead admit you do believe in the God of science, which is just as much as belief as faith , because science is constantly updating itself , and contradicting itself.

    It doesn’t have answers to fundamental questions like where did the water come from on Earth?
    the closet its gotten is to say meteors crashed into the Earth and brought small deposits

    take a guess at how many meteors it would take to fill the worlds oceans
    i guess you’re not laughing now .. see the problem !

  106. Well, I for one am most definitely laughing!

  107. so am I petr

    the great body of the worlds scientists past present can’t even frigging well explain how the most common thing in creation ” water ” actually came from .. its is hugely laughable
    but then the inevitable happens after your sides hurt and you recover
    you’re faced with the question ,., what the fuck ?

    we don’t even know that ..

  108. seamus
    pat is letting me do a thread .. I’ll get round to it next few days, work is full on at the moment ..

    but here’s a taster

    The focus is on the Bible , this is what it all comes down to mo chara
    Is it a work of fiction or real history ( or or ?? )

    the bible breaks down into roughly 2 elements

    1) The Miraculous
    2) the non – miraculous

    nowe as regards the second

    so we know a huge part of the bible is verified ,

    lets deal with the New Testament first

    1) The 4 gospels are written accounts , scholars have poured over these for 2000 years
    they”re regarded as genuine authentic records written in Greek
    The acts of the apostles – similarly Greek , Luke was a physician not a Jew and a Doctor
    and its accepted he’s the one who wrote those.
    The letters of paul , they speak for themselves, they’re letter to the early churches that he planted before losing his head in Rome
    revelations, this is a document John the Apostle had dictated to him and he wrote it down.
    When he finally was released from Patmos he sailed to Ephesus and lived out his days with mary the mother of God, on the outskirts of that city , which was Pauls homebase

    Old testament :

    splits into Genesis , Exodus … includes psalms, proverbs, Juuges, Kings and Prophets

    so again as with the New testament 99% is concerned with the non-miraculous

    we have accounts of what the prophets wrote neatly transcribed e.g Isaiah , Jeremiah
    they loved , they died, were buried, some of the graves we know
    Kings, from Samuel to David and beyond, we have their records, we know the towns where they lived, the cities etc, and the various activities that went on as a historical records in the kingdom

    Judges again as above

    Babylonian captivity, the Israelites were taken to Babylon , this lasted 40 years
    plenty of written evidence and records of that ..

    2)the miraculous

    Genesis would qualify the claim of 7 days
    Egypt – Exodus would qualify (the 10 plague)
    many parts of the jews wanderings for 40 years would qualify
    red sea parting, manna from heaven , the split rock of Horeb

    conclusion
    when you break it down , the bible is less than .001 % miraculous
    its about the history of the the peoples of Abraham down through the ages,
    kings, judges, prophets the foretelling of the messiah, the coming of the messiah and then what happened after wards .. 90% verifiable due to the documents writings .

    I’ll return to the miracles in the pat post, that’s where the controversy lies
    Now i need a cup of tea and off to work … laters ..

  109. “when you break it down , the bible is less than .001 % miraculous”

    But you f*ck ONE goat….

    (In truth the Bible contains more superheros than Avengers Endgame and more supernatural shenanigans than Hogwarts)

  110. This is basically the same conversation that was being had a few days ago ie the futility of someone with no faith arguing against someone with faith. Neither side is going to accede to the other and will probably further entrench themselves in their own beliefs, relying on scientific or spiritual formulae to further strengthen their defences.
    Writing a long comment or even a post will not change so much as one person’s mind on here, nor will it make anyone say to themselves, “Hmmm, that’s a good point. I will go away and ponder it, as it has really challenged my own beliefs.”

  111. kurt

    Your post, if it is about the accuracy of Biblical stories will be a refreshing new topic for discussion here and I welcome it. However, you must expect a lot of disdainful mocking on any subsequent discussion thread so please don’t throw your toys out of the pram no matter “who” tries to stir you up 🙂

  112. Seimi

    I don’t necessarily think it will be that. It looks like it will be an attempt to discuss the science and verifiable history behind certain events that happened in the bible rather than an attempt to proselytise faith – and at least it will be a change from the overload of Trump/Flynn/Collusion/BLM/Dem v Rep COVID responses and other assorted American culture wars that seem to dominate ATW nowadays.

  113. Colm — what’s all this “Covid” talk? Surely you mean The Plandemic??

  114. Colm

    That may be how it will start, but what is the logical outcome?
    ‘Science proves…’ vs ‘No it doesn’t…’
    ‘Archaeology shows us…’ vs ‘No it doesn’t…’

    There will be the oft-repeated theories about tsunami/flood events throughout history; the star in the east/Halley’s comet etc etc.
    There will be no final consensus, because there is no desire for a consensus. Both sides firmly believe in what they believe and ultimately it will come down to faith in scientific facts and theories vs faith that the stories in the Bible are historical accounts of actual events and if someone believes the latter, they will not have their minds changed by the former, and vice versa.

    I agree that it will be a diversion from all that you mentioned, but ultimately it’s an exercise in stalemate.

  115. Petr Tarasov, on June 30th, 2020 at 9:54 AM Said:
    Colm — what’s all this “Covid” talk? Surely you mean The Plandemic??

    Yeah, Colm, can you at least throw a ‘Bat Flu’ or ‘Chicom Flu’ in there please?

  116. Seimi,

    “ultimately it’s an exercise in stalemate”

    This is true of all discussions of alternative facts but you don’t swoop in to try to shut those down. In this case you even joined in yourself http://www.atangledweb.org/?p=84039#comment-799233.

    Anyway, whatever it is that you and others take such exception to about merely stating supernatural claims in plain language, I doubt that it’s because the approach is NOT convincing. I think it’s that (as Colm alludes to) it sounds mocking. But that’s only because when stripped of obfuscation and taken seriously these claims sound ridiculous. Merely to take the same approach with them as any other claims invites laughter. Perhaps that is a problem with the claims rather than the way of speaking about them.

  117. Seimi — One of the great sources of entertainment in early lockdown was watching the far-shite trying to figure out their talking points.

    Originally it was, CLOSE THE PORTS AND AIRPORTS – THIS THING IS DANGEROUS. Just a week or two later the position had ‘evolved’ and the whole thing was now apparently a hoax — Plandemic, Scamdemic etc. Funny.

  118. Seimi,

    Also to add re this “Writing a long comment or even a post will not change so much as one person’s mind on here, nor will it make anyone say to themselves, “Hmmm, that’s a good point. I will go away and ponder it, as it has really challenged my own beliefs.””

    This is not as universal as you think (and again it would apply to pretty much any topic in any case). I have certainly changed my mind on several topics. Indeed some of them are exactly the ones that people trot that comment out about.

  119. …but you don’t swoop in to try to shut those down.

    Frank, I wasn’t aware that I was ‘swooping in’ anywhere, and I can assure you, I’m not trying to shut anything down. Your flair for the dramatic is noted though.

    Anyway, whatever it is that you and others take such exception to about merely stating supernatural claims in plain language, I doubt that it’s because the approach is NOT convincing.

    I don’t take exception to it at all, and I don’t really know why or how you could misunderstand me so much. Merely giving my opinion on how I believe a discussion will go is not ‘taking exception to’ the subject matter. It’s just my opinion that the discussion will end in a stalemate, as both sides are ultimately entrenched in their own beliefs and will not budge an inch based on the other side’s argument. There’s nothing wrong with me stating that opinion, and it certainly shouldn’t evoke a defensive stance from you, or anyone else. You seem to be making the assumption that I find the Bible side of the argument laughable. Why would you make that assumption? What indication have I given, here or on the post you weirdly linked to (can you please show me where I got involved in the debate re science v Bible?) that I find the Biblical explanations laughable?

  120. I have certainly changed my mind on several topics.

    Spill Frank. What did you change your mind on and what made you change it?

  121. Seán Óg Ó hAilpín: a patriot and leader of men

    As Dunphy said of Cannavaro – he’s a man you’d go to war and die for.

  122. This is not as universal as you think (and again it would apply to pretty much any topic in any case). I have certainly changed my mind on several topics. Indeed some of them are exactly the ones that people trot that comment out about.

    Frank, I know it applies to pretty much any comment. In this case though, do you honestly believe that anyone here, having read a post and subsequent comments debating the validity of scientific theories vs the validity of stories in the Bible, ie non-faith vs faith, will change from being someone with no faith to someone with faith? Me neither.
    Faith isn’t something that can be dissolved by science. I’m not arguing for one over the other. In fact, I have some thoughts on the subject myself, but – again – all I was stating was my personal opinion on how the debate is likely to go.

    Petr

    I know. One person on here has gone complete circle, starting with ‘it was bats’ and finishing recently on ‘it was bats!’

  123. Seimi,

    “It’s just my opinion that the discussion will end in a stalemate, as both sides are ultimately entrenched in their own beliefs and will not budge an inch based on the other side’s argument. ”

    But that’s not true (and it’s certainly not specific to this topic). One side is open to evidence. The other is not.

    Nor is it a dichotomy between “science” and “the Bible”, since the claims also defy common sense.

    If for example someone was arrested for shoplifting or a cold case murder and their defence was that it couldn’t have been them because that they were out with their mate Moses parting the Red Sea that day, and in fact someone who died 2000 years ago had done it, the prosecution would not need to call scientific experts to show otherwise.

  124. My God (pardon the pun) kurt hasn’t even written his Biblical post yet and its generating a lively debate !

    Well done kurt 🙂

    BTW – For myself, I can think of a topic where my mind was changed here on ATW and it was by Frank. A few years ago there were debates on ATW about the concept of same sex marraige. I didn’t agree with it – not out of moral reasons- I just thought it was conceptually unnecessary but I was persuaded to change my view by Frank’s argument.

  125. kurt,

    noel, not being funny but you have a huge knowledge deficit on the subject

    Finding the Mountain of Moses: The Real Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjrxHqNy5CQ

    As with the Turin shroud, your idea of knowledge Kurt seems to be fictional and opinion pieces that fit your own biases. Not factual peer reviewed evidence.

  126. Frank
    The arguments for and against so far have been scientifically, historically and faith based. Creating a strawman ‘cold case’ scenario doesn’t change that.

  127. Colm,

    Well done you 🙂 I can’t for the life of me think what I might have said that convinced you though!

  128. Frank . It was a while ago now but I think you threatened to come and burn my house down if I didn’t agree with you. I found that a convincing and persuasive argument 🙂

  129. I know it’s typical of many on ATW to have firm, fixed opinions about things such as Twitter. But I find it really strange when people label something like Twitter either good or bad. That’s like labelling cars either good or bad.

  130. Dave – think of it as being critical of a format.

  131. Colm

    I’m not talking about changing your opinion on something, based on strong evidence and persuasive argument, when I say the debate will end in stalemate. I’m talking about a person’s faith – or not – that god exists. A discussion about the scientific and historical evidence to prove/disprove events in the Bible will ultimately come down to whether or not the person debating has or hasn’t got faith. Someone who doesn’t believe in god will agree with the scientific and historical explanation, dismissing the idea that a supernatural entity had anything to do with it, whereas someone who does believe in god will – whilst possibly recognising the science/history – also see the Divine at work.

  132. Seimi,

    “The arguments for and against so far have been scientifically, historically and faith based. Creating a strawman ‘cold case’ scenario doesn’t change that.”

    But its not a strawman. It’s an argument that I am making.

    I’m pointing out that even by legal standards the arguments for these claims wouldn’t fly. That is, if someone’s alibi were to rest on supernatural and scientifically impossible events, then a simpler way to say that is that they don’t have an alibi.

    On the flip side, being dead at the time would be a perfect alibi. It would not take long to establish this in a court and the prosecutions claims that you did it while resurrected would be dismissed. No scientific experts would be called (though we know what they would say – and they’d be right).

    These should not be controversial claims.

  133. There is absolutely zero scientific evidence for the existence of a god or gods.
    Isn’t that why it’s called faith?

  134. Mahons,

    Dave – think of it as being critical of a format.

    In what respect?

  135. Lads, I think you’re stealing Kurt’s post’s thunder.

  136. Frank

    they aren’t controversial claims. They are, however, completely irrelevant to the point I am trying, and apparently failing, to make. None of us can accurately see into the future, but I’m pretty certain that the post kurt is planning to put up, is not some murder case, where the defendant’s alibi is that he couldn’t have done it because at the time he was over 2,000 years in the past, with someone who may or may not have even existed.

    Kurt has, several times now, made arguments for historical and scientific truth and accuracy in the Bible. Several people have challenged him on this, and so he has written something to bolster his argument.

    My point is that the debate will end in stalemate, as neither side will concede that the opposing side’s argument has more validity than theirs, ie that faith-based evidence is more convincing than non-faith-based evidence, and therefore change their opinion. Or vice versa. By the end of the debate, I am pretty sure there will be no born-again Christians on ATW, based on the points made in the ensuing post, in the same way that no-one will forsake their sciences to follow a more spitiual life.

  137. Lads, I think you’re stealing Kurt’s post’s thunder.

    We’ll just copy and paste all of this to there 🙂

  138. Seimi

    in the same way that no-one will forsake their sciences to follow a more spitiual life.

    You don’t need to forsake science to follow a spiritual life.
    It’s interesting that you think you do.

  139. That the format is a flawed and limited method for providing information and opinion.

  140. Mahons,

    That the format is a flawed and limited method for providing information and opinion.

    I’m not sure what you mean by that Mahons. For what Twitter was designed and intended for I think it’s format is ideal. It was never intended as a news or information service.

  141. And yet that is what it is being treated as.

  142. Mahons. But you can’t criticise Twitter for that.

  143. When Twitter was launched it was marketed as a micro-blogging platform. It was evolved over the years but the nature of the format has always encouraged/rewarded soundbite discourse, the expression of maximalist arguments and claims. In the Twitter era, politics has become decidedly more polarised and the platform contributed to this.

    You could argue that the same was happening in blogs and other pre-Twitter social platforms, but I don’t think there’s any doubt the situation got far worse over the years that Twitter became the most important social network.

  144. You don’t need to forsake science to follow a spiritual life.
    It’s interesting that you think you do.

    I don’t think that you do, Dave. What I mean is that no person without faith is going to forsake any of their scientific beliefs and substitute them with faith-based beliefs, based on any arguments put forward in a post here.

  145. What function does twitter serve today?

    Besides being an efficient delivery device for political propaganda and for celebrity comments?

    Perhaps it could have been something useful but this miss what it actually is

  146. This is

  147. Petr.
    I think of it as less about blaming Twitter and more about blaming the users of Twitter. I think what Twitter proves is that many people are nasty bastards at heart when provided with a degree of anonymity. And I guess the same can be said for many people using social media platforms.

  148. Dave — I don’t disagree with you. My argument is not that Twitter has done anything wrong. But I think the format doesn’t lend itself to more in-depth, productive discourse. Of course it’s not Twitter’s job to do that, but I think it’s a little more than the users being a-holes.I think the format encourages a-holery; whether by accident or design.

  149. I don’t think that you do, Dave. What I mean is that no person without faith is going to forsake any of their scientific beliefs and substitute them with faith-based beliefs, based on any arguments put forward in a post here.

    I might be being stupid here, but I don’t understand why you would need to forsake any scientific beliefs to believe in God.
    Obviously to be a creationist you would have to. But I know lots of people who accept science in it’s entirety, and still have a religious belief.
    I don’t believe the two are mutually exclusive, but I’m sure there are people who disagree with me.

  150. Seimi,

    “They are, however, completely irrelevant to the point I am trying, and apparently failing, to make.”

    They are however relevant to a point I am making.

    Your point is that nobody will be convinced. I get it. To which my answer is mostly so what? As I mentioned before that applies to many/all topics discussed here. The objective is not to convince anyone it is to represent a view not being discussed in the hope that someone would at least understand it. And indeed that I myself will gain some insight into why normally sensible people seemingly talk nonsense about this stuff and this stuff only. Besides, it is not my experience that nobody is ever convinced.

    “…I’m pretty certain that the post kurt is planning to put up, is not some murder case, where the defendant’s alibi…”

    This point is just silly. Analogies always have differences to the thing being discussed. That is why they are called analogies. It’s not therefore enough to bluster about them not being identical, or point to some irrelevant difference – those are always easily found – you have to show why the analogy is false.

    In any case, I’m not and wasn’t talking about Kurt’s post in the first place. I posted in response to Seamus’s post in the first instance and currently I am responding to yours.

  151. Seimi,

    “They are, however, completely irrelevant to the point I am trying, and apparently failing, to make.”

    They are however relevant to a point I am making.

    Your point is that nobody will be convinced. I get it. To which my answer is mostly so what? As I mentioned before that applies to many/all topics discussed here. The objective is not to convince anyone it is to represent a view not being discussed in the hope that someone would at least understand it. And indeed that I myself will gain some insight into why normally sensible people seemingly talk nonsense about this stuff and this stuff only. Besides, it is not my experience that nobody is ever convinced.

    “…I’m pretty certain that the post kurt is planning to put up, is not some murder case, where the defendant’s alibi…”

    This point is just silly. Analogies always have differences to the thing being discussed. That is why they are called analogies. It’s not therefore enough to bluster about them not being identical, or point to some irrelevant difference – those are always easily found – you have to show why the analogy is false.

    In any case, I’m not and wasn’t talking about Kurt’s post in the first place. I posted in response to Seamus’s post in the first instance and currently I am responding to yours.

  152. The nature of the format has always encouraged/rewarded soundbite discourse, the expression of maximalist arguments and claims. In the Twitter era, politics has become decidedly more polarised and the platform contributed to this.

    That’s a sound observation Petr. My problem with Twitter is that it’s a gateway to all the loopers as well as nasty, vile, sinister anons that the world has to offer but yes, Twitter’s format doesn’t lend itself to in depth discussion and as such political soundbites get around the globe in minutes.

    What function does twitter serve today?

    As I said elsewhere last night very often Twitter will be the first point of contact for breaking news from reputable individuals and sources.

  153. I’m obviously not making myself clear here.
    I’m not saying that faith in God means not accepting science. I’m saying that someone who doesn’t believe in God is not going to be convinced to believe in God based on a faith-based argument, whether that faith-based argument incorporates scientific amd/or historical data.
    You said it yourself in your 11.31. You said there is zero scientific evidence for the existence of God, and that is why it is called ‘faith.’ Someone who has faith will believe in God, regardless of scientific evidence against the possibility, and will not be persuaded by mere ‘science’ to forsake their faith and belief. In the same way, someone who doesn’t believe in God, because there is zero scientific evidence to prove it, will not be persuaded to believe otherwise, based on a faith-based argument.
    Please tell me you understand what I’m trying to say! 😂

  154. “…I’m pretty certain that the post kurt is planning to put up, is not some murder case, where the defendant’s alibi…”

    This point is just silly.

    If for example someone was arrested for shoplifting or a cold case murder and their defence was that it couldn’t have been them because that they were out with their mate Moses parting the Red Sea that day, and in fact someone who died 2000 years ago had done it, the prosecution would not need to call scientific experts to show otherwise.

    You’re correct. It is silly, and it was silly when it was first made.

    “They are, however, completely irrelevant to the point I am trying, and apparently failing, to make.”

    They are however relevant to a point I am making.

    The point you were making, and the one I was responding to, was the point which you deemed as ‘silly’ above. I agreed.

    In any case, I’m not and wasn’t talking about Kurt’s post in the first place. I posted in response to Seamus’s post in the first instance and currently I am responding to yours.

    You responded directly to me at 10.33 AM, with an overly dramatic comment about me ‘swooping in’ etc. I hadn’t commented at all on any of your comments before that.

  155. I don’t want to presume what kurt is going to argue but I don’t think he is going to be persuading people of the scientific case for God. I think he is simply going to argue that some of the stories in the Bible have scientific proof behind them – not necessarily that accepting such proofs means that you must agree God exists or that the whole Bible is the verified word of God.

  156. Seimi,

    “You’re correct. It is silly, and it was silly when it was first made.”

    Apology accepted. Please don’t make that point again.

  157. Nice try, Frank, but it was your point, that you made.

  158. Paul,

    “Spill Frank. What did you change your mind on and what made you change it?”

    A fair few things – on this topic I used to be more agnostic for example. I am still agnostic in theory however when it comes to most actual religions I am an atheist. I think it was Pascal said something like he believed “not in the god of the philosophers but the god of Abraham and Isaac”….in my case that’s one of the ones I don’t believe in. I used to be somewhat “pro-life” and now am pro-choice. I used to think morality was objective and now I think it is relative. I also think facts are relative – that is, our perceptions shape our theories and vice versa (tho neither of these have much practical relevance or application to anything). I also nowadays think fairly differently about life after death. But it still bears no resemblance to the theistic ideas, it’s just that I think there is quite convincing evidence that the ideas we have about our “self” are something like an optical illusion and so it is not clear what it would mean for that to end. Most of these changes came from debating and reading counterpoints tho I think the last one just came about from various books I read. I think also I’m in general more open to different views than I would have been when younger.

  159. Seimi.

    Please tell me you understand what I’m trying to say! 😂

    I do now.
    It was your original comment on having to forsake science which threw me.

  160. Seimi,

    “Nice try, Frank, but it was your point, that you made.”

    You were saying that Kurt’s future post (which I was not talking about) will likely be different (in ways you have yet to show any relevance for) to my post….so that was (I can’t believe I have to explain it to you) YOUR point (I will charitably assume you had one, in saying so), not my point.

    As for “silly”, the fact that supernatural claims sound silly to everyone in pretty much every other context is the point. So your saying that it sounds silly is not the rebuttal you think it is.

  161. Appreciate the 1.10 explanation, Frank.

  162. Paul,

    “Twitter is the gateway of every crackpot & mooncat on the globe. It has some seriously nasty, vile and sinister people on it too.
    It is however great for breaking news.”

    I think with things like twitter it’s up to you – with a bit of choice / experimenting / taking a punt in who and/or the types of you follow you will come up with the occasional nugget of wisdom or news among all the nonsense, or just get out of the echo chamber a bit. And some of it is just really, really funny.

    This though is very apt (and also very funny):

    https://theoutline.com/post/7295/buckle-up-twitter-is-cancelled?zd=1&zi=74k7vmc2

  163. Okay Frank, we’d best leave it there. I know what I meant, you know what you meant, but if we’re now getting to the patronising ‘I can’t believe I have to explain this to you’ point, then the conversation is probably best left as is.

  164. Twitter is the gateway of every crackpot & mooncat on the globe. It has some seriously nasty, vile and sinister people on it too.

    Here’s some vile, sinister, nastiness……

    https://twitter.com/MarkACollett/status/1277550067029860352

  165. Kurt

    It doesn’t have answers to fundamental questions like where did the water come from on Earth?
    the closet its gotten is to say meteors crashed into the Earth and brought small deposits

    take a guess at how many meteors it would take to fill the worlds oceans
    i guess you’re not laughing now .. see the problem !

    I’m impressed Kurt. I didn’t think anybody could be more scientifically illiterate than Patrick but you’ve taken the crown.

  166. ok Dave, I challenge you to tell us how water came to be upon the planet Earth, in huge abundance.
    Where did it all come from ?
    you’ll have some serious work to do on that, with your peer reviewed tests and verification, , high standards of scientific literacy that you boast of and mock me and pat for.
    you walked right into it mate 😉
    lets be having ya ..

  167. heya colm, i’d love to think Harri is busy with the post on “black on black crime” chicago/london
    what dya reckon ? Is he or isn’t he trawling through the evidence and fact checking into the early hours ?
    Hmmn? scratches head –

  168. kurt,

    ok Dave, I challenge you to tell us how water came to be upon the planet Earth, in huge abundance.
    Where did it all come from ?

    Firstly, You’re not talking to Harri mate, I don’t play those games.
    Secondly, I’m not a scientist. I’m just someone who can read and (mostly) understand scientific documents. And There is mountains of information on where the water came from.

    But I tell you what mate. Just this once I’ll do your work for you.
    First off, there isn’t that much water on earth.

    If Earth was the size of a basketball, all of its water would fit into a ping pong ball.

    How much water is that? It’s roughly 326 million cubic miles (1.332 billion cubic kilometres)

    “There’s not a lot of water on Earth at all,” said David Gallo, an oceanographer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Massachusetts.

    If the Earth was an apple, Gallo said, the water layer would be thinner than the fruit’s skin. The Earth’s freshwater is even rarer.

    And there is massively more water, just in our solar systems asteroid belts?

    By combining those observations with other measurements as well as data about meteorites that have fallen to Earth from asteroids, the team calculated a basic estimate for how much water could be trapped inside near-Earth asteroids. According to that estimate, there may be between 100 billion and 400 billion gallons (400 billion to 1,200 billion liters) of water spread among these space rocks.

    It’s a no briner really.

    https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/telescopes/a9982/why-it-matters-that-theres-so-much-water-in-the-asteroid-belt-16434422/

    https://www.space.com/how-much-water-in-asteroids.html#:~:text=According%20to%20that%20estimate%2C%20there%20may%20be%20between,won%27t%20interfere%20with%20the%20direct%20signature%20of%20water.

    https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/telescopes/a9982/why-it-matters-that-theres-so-much-water-in-the-asteroid-belt-16434422/

  169. Dave

    It’s a no briner really.

    Please tell me you meant that in terms of fresh water 🙂

  170. There are more than 326 million trillion gallons of water on Earth. Less than three percent of all this water is freshwater and of that amount, more than two-thirds is locked up in ice caps and glaciers.

    the percentage amount in the asteroid belt represents .000000001% of the water on Earth

    so that is a non-starter , you see the problem . Scientists don’t know and their best guess is out by a factor of 1,000,000,000

  171. I liked no briner too 🙂

    A lesser man might also point out that there is not enough water on Earth to cause…..let’s take an example completely at random….a global flood?

    I am that lesser man.

  172. kurt,

    There are more than 326 million trillion gallons of water on Earth. Less than three percent of all this water is freshwater and of that amount, more than two-thirds is locked up in ice caps and glaciers.

    the percentage amount in the asteroid belt represents .000000001% of the water on Earth

    I thought you’d understand the simple fact that space is really, really big kurt. My point is if there is water in one asteroid belt, then there is water in most asteroid belts. Does that make sense? It’s been proven there is water on other planets, in planetary rings, surrounding black holes etc.
    Why don’t you try reading the literature kurt instead of just making up claims.

    Is this enough water for you?
    https://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/universe20110722.html

    Also, you keep making the point that science doesn’t know everything Kurt. Thing is, while that’s true that doesn’t mean that science is wrong about things it does know, or god did it. And science gets it right massively more times than it gets it wrong. It’s by far the best method we have for determining out reality and how it works.

  173. Frank ODwyer,

    I liked no briner too 🙂

    I don’t know what’s worse. My dictation or typing.

  174. lol I thought you were talking about brine, what you can have tins of sardines in 😉
    but there’s no brine.

    its troubling for science , because their premise is the Earth was really hot and cooled down over time, so you need to get a lot of water onto or into Earth, and the best guess is meteors which burn up through the atmosphere. The numbers are just way out . you might wait 1000 years to fill a bath tub , then there’s the sun .. beating down . where did the atmosphere come from ? we have a best guess and no-more ..

    its really simple if you’re a creationist .
    God created the heavens and the Earth, and separated the water above and below, and at the cataclysm of Noahs flood, it all came raining down as well as from the beneath the firmament

    Point is whether you believe it or not, the bible has a perfect explanation as to where the water came from and how the oceans /seas came to be so full of it

    science doesn’t have a theory that explains where it comes from, just a hunch a best guess , and is out by huge factors, in fact its asking us to suspend reasonable belief to imagine the miraculous to get all the water from the asteroid belt to the oceans and seas
    Its not a confident scientific theory at all .. the best scientists say we don’t really know, but we think its might be from asteroids ..

  175. God created the heavens and the Earth, and separated the water above and below, and at the cataclysm of Noahs flood, it all came raining down as well as from the beneath the firmament

    Point is whether you believe it or not, the bible has a perfect explanation as to where the water came from and how the oceans /seas came to be so full of it

    I can’t believe your putting that forward as a reasonable explanation kurt. That’s not science, that’s a fairy story from a book with no evidence to back it up.

    science doesn’t have a theory that explains where it comes from, just a hunch a best guess , and is out by huge factors, in fact its asking us to suspend reasonable belief to imagine the miraculous to get all the water from the asteroid belt to the oceans and seas
    Its not a confident scientific theory at all .. the best scientists say we don’t really know, but we think its might be from asteroids ..

    kurt. You keep making these untrue claims. We know there is abundant water out there. We know there is water on other planets and in space. there is no ‘best guess’ as you keep calling it. If your interested, (but I’m guessing your not), read up on the formation of the early galaxy and our solar system. the presence of water on earth is explained very well.

  176. kurt

    Please please please can you give me the scientific explanation of the biblical story concerning the turning of water into wine. I would be most grateful because i’ve just finished my last bottle of Chilean red , i don’t want to pop out to the shops but I do have a bath full of water 🙂

  177. Colm,

    “but I do have a bath full of water”

    First you must explain where you got that water.

  178. Frank
    It may have come from asteroids.

  179. colm
    //but I do have a bath full of water 🙂//

    is it brainy water? 🙂

  180. colm I like Oscar Wilde’s

    “The English have a their own unique way of turning wine into water ”

    can’t help ya — its a miracle ( the first one at that ) and relunctantly done by Jesus
    he told him mum , his time had not yet come , but did it anyway cos he’s a nice lad 😉

    Dave, how bout we leave it there, i look at the studies, I’m very much interested in science
    and always have been ..

    The post has gone to pat ,
    Its a taster, you’ll be suprised, and like Lord of the Rings a three part blockbuster
    part 1 is has been sent
    ooh … 🙂

  181. So kurt – you have managed to persuade Pat to separate your one allocated post into 3 parts ?

    Its a miracle I tell ya 🙂

  182. lol , da-tree-in-one, yeah:
    Did you ever see the hilarious Heavens Above Ealing Comedy with Peter Sellers
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavens_Above!

  183. No, that one has passed me by. I never really enjoyed the comedy of Peter Sellers.

  184. Belles of St.Trinians then ?

  185. Who could fail to enjoy naughty schoolgirls ? 🙂

  186. kurt, you seem to think God left certain physical clues around – water here or there, x-rays on cloth, pure water turning into wine – to show that he exists and that the scientific method can’t explain all nature.

    Why then does he use physics at all, and why do you think he left so few clues? Does he want people to know he exists or is he keeping it a secret so that only the faithful will believe? You seem to think it’s a bit of both, which is somewhat curious. Miracles are miracles etc which nobody can understand, but at the same time God isn’t averse to employing certain phenomena of physics to “prove” something when the fancy takes him.

  187. Noel ,
    I genuinely believe we’ve been given all we need. He set Saul/Paul on his course to preach to the gentiles, which began the churches, it them took another 300 yrs or so for Rome to shed its doctrines of the Emperor as God, which was huge, there followed the Dark Ages when men like St.Patrick began to awaken souls in Ireland and so on.
    So He made sure the gospels went into the Holy Bible and the letters and that it would be preached unto all nations. Which brings us to the present day .

    The frills, the extra’s like Noah’s Ark in Turkey, the burnt top of the mountain in Saudi where Moses got the the commandments are his footprints, people like to discover these things to make the difficult to grasp, easier. It just might be true !

    I’m a late convert, though have always flirted with mystical Christianity , monkish, mission and monasticm ,much like C.S.Lewis. It’s not meant to be arrogance, its meant to be a surrender to what is .. to accept the tenants of the faith, and once seeing with those eyes of faith – its all so clear . I think how did i miss it ..

    The roses have the look of roses that are looked at . you can lick your tongue into the corners of the evening, , but that’s the poetry, the truth is the cross finds you out, broken you cling to it, and find rest. His love quietens your mind and his face shines upon you .. and you’re no longer an orphan, a child of wrath , but a Son and an heir.

  188. ///The roses have the look of roses that are looked at . //

    But when they burn they leave only ashes on an old man’s sleeve.

  189. Poetry.. pah! who needs it ? 🙂

  190. It’s been a good year for the roses

  191. A great song, Frank.

  192. But when they burn they leave only ashes on an old man’s sleeve.

    unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed.
    But if it dies, it produces many seeds

  193. colm,
    pat is deliberating on the first instalment, i think he’s so impressed he thinks its someone else’s work, but its all mine 🙂
    this morning I’m thinking who are the gatekeepers of knowledge, and i’m going after them

  194. well kurt as long as you don’t pull down the statues of knowledge that’s OK 🙂

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.