The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Soul Winner

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Holy smuck. What a mouthful and you didn't even answer the question.

The only question asked was this: "So just to confirm... You believe that Latin evolved into two (or more) separate languages e.g. French and Italian?"

Eh, yes, of course, and who knows what other influences where also involved in the development of these languages? But yeah, the general idea is that French and Italian wouldn't be what they are today without the Latin influence.

Tim Robbins

Soul Winner wrote: »

The only question asked was this: "So just to confirm... You believe that Latin evolved into two (or more) separate languages e.g. French and Italian?"

Eh, yes, of course, and who knows what other influences where also involved in the development of these languages? But yeah, the general idea is that French and Italian wouldn't be what they are today without the Latin influence.

Ok so Latin is a common ancestor to French and Italian. We're getting places :-)

So you accept that languages can have common ancestors but not species?

Soul Winner

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Ok so Latin is a common ancestor to French and Italian. We're getting places :-)

So you accept that languages can have common ancestors but not species?

Who said anything about not accepting common decent in species? I didn't anyway. I did question the mechanism whereby common decent is supposed to have taken place. But be that as it may. Language is different to life on many levels. Its like comparing apples with oranges? Both grow on trees but after that the differences contrast greatly. But that's not to say that I don't believe that language evolved, I do, but there was intelligence involved at every stage of its development, so if you want to compare language with life then you must submit that intelligence was also involved in the development of life also. If you don't want to submit that then stop drawing analogies between the two.

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

Who said anything about not accepting common decent in species? I didn't anyway.

Do you accept that all species are descended from a common ancestor?

Tim Robbins

Soul Winner wrote: »

Who said anything about not accepting common decent in species? I didn't anyway. I did question the mechanism whereby common decent is supposed to have taken place. But be that as it may. Language is different to life on many levels. Its like comparing apples with oranges? Both grow on trees but after that the differences contrast greatly. But that's not to say that I don't believe that language evolved, I do, but there was intelligence involved at every stage of its development, so if you want to compare language with life then you must submit that intelligence was also involved in the development of life also. If you don't want to submit that then stop drawing analogies between the two.

Language evolves through random mutation and random selection. There is no survival advantage to either "oui" or "si" based on the environment in France or Italy. We don't see languages change into other languages because it takes too long to happen but we have no problem believing it happens.

We have no-one shouting they are language creationists!

Darwinian evolution which is random mutation and non random selection is far easier to understand and accept than the evolution of languages. All the DNA is a series of words that mutate and are non randomly selected for survival. Because selection is non random it's far more likely that you'll get divergence from the common ancestor and it is far more likely to happen quicker.

The Mad Hatter

Tim Robbins wrote: »

We have no-one shouting they are language creationists!

Yes, sadly, we do. Search this thread for mention of the tower of Babel.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

We don't see languages change into other languages because it takes too long to happen

It happens remarkably quickly. I was in an African-American barber's shop in Memphis a few years ago and was totally unable to communicate to the young man cutting my hair how I wanted it. His language was a one-generation evolution of street slang and, although evidently based on English, I couldn't understand a word of it. It ended up with the whole shop laughing at us both.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

It happens remarkably quickly. I was in an African-American barber's shop in Memphis a few years ago and was totally unable to communicate to the young man cutting my hair how I wanted it. His language was a one-generation evolution of street slang and, although evidently based on English, I couldn't understand a word of it. It ended up with the whole shop laughing at us both.

Couldn't help but think of you in this place.:)

virmilitaris

PDN wrote: »

It happens remarkably quickly. I was in an African-American barber's shop in Memphis a few years ago and was totally unable to communicate to the young man cutting my hair how I wanted it. His language was a one-generation evolution of street slang and, although evidently based on English, I couldn't understand a word of it. It ended up with the whole shop laughing at us both.

Absolutely and this isn't just related to slang or cultural differences. I recently heard a recording from some citizens of Seoul from the 1920's and while I'm far from fluent in Korean I was disappointed that I could make out almost nothing. I then asked my Korean friends what was been said and they couldn't understand that much more than me.

I also work with North Koreans and because their country has been cut off from the rest of the world and is so conservative the way they talk is extremely strange to the Southerners. They speak like the Southerners did 50 years ago.

When the Japanese Emperor surrendered on radio after WW2 most (common) Japanese couldn't understand him because he spoke in an older and more formal style of Japanese than what was commonly understood at the time.

Just try to understand this speech by Patrick Stewart from Hamlet in modern English. (Any excuse to post this. By the way, I can't recommend this enough. Hamlet by the Royal Shakespeare Company 2009 with Patrick Stewart and David Tennant)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2RHXt9t-d4

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

It happens remarkably quickly. I was in an African-American barber's shop in Memphis a few years ago and was totally unable to communicate to the young man cutting my hair how I wanted it. His language was a one-generation evolution of street slang and, although evidently based on English, I couldn't understand a word of it. It ended up with the whole shop laughing at us both.

But that's a few decades at least. You won't see language evolve in hours or days. You didn't see the accent, words, pronunciations he was using evolve.

In fact, I think a language is less likely to evolve into separate languages if it is widely written down. This provides a fixed reference point.

Soul Winner

And Delta Airlines have gone all Jive on us... '@ Delta we loves us some flyin and it be showin like a m*th*f*k*'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlK7UucNm34

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Science has over thrown all naturalistic explanations?

Well, at least there seems to be a consensus among both creationists and evolutionists that the other (non-evolutionary) naturalist explanations have been overthrown. I'm taking their word on it.

ALL OF THEM? Even the ones we haven't thought of yet?

Can you explain how that works?

No, not the ones we haven't thought of yet. But we operate in the real world, so if there is nothing we can even think of, it will not be a great excuse for us ignoring what seems to be more likely candidates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We are talking about ORIGINS, Wickie, not OPERATIONS. Creationism and Evolutionism both hold to natural operations.
If we are talking science we are talking operations. Science is methodology for modelling processes and testing to see if these models are accurate.

For science to model the origin of anything it has to model the operation that cause that thing to be.

Models of evolution do not demonstrate it happens. Just how it might happen. Repeatable experiments are entirely different in quality of 'proof'.

You stated that atheists would be happy with any non-supernatural explanation of the operation that causes the origin of life. That is correct, though for reasons you seem not to understand.

It is correct because the alternative is that the operation cannot be known and thus cannot be understood. And since atheists tend to like understanding things, we prefer it the thing is knowable. It may not be, which would be a same, but by definition we will never know this either.

When I said 'happy', I was not referring to intellectual satisfaction in scientific discovery, but to their emotional relief in not having to face the existence of God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Certainly, having evolution debunked would warrant a brief re-examination of previous debunked theories - but with the same result.
You see pretty confident of that? Can I ask what do you base this confidence on? Biblical revelation perhaps?

Yes, of course those theories also contradict the Biblical account - and so are wrong. But my confidence relates also to the consensus of scientists of both creationist and evolutionist persuasion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Creationists do accept modern science - just not some of the speculation and interpretation that has emerged from it - evolution being the major example.
Along with astrophysics, atomic theory, radioactive decay theory, general relativity, big bang theory, expanding universe theory. Basically anything within the last 150 years that contradicts their particular interpretation of the Bible. Which is most things. Hence they reject most science.

You infer creationism rejects much of that - it doesn't. It rejects many inferences scientists draw from the facts in those fields.

One therefore cannot use these rejected theories to justify rejecting other theories without being hypocritical.

Which makes me wonder why you stated that after a "brief" period we could reject all other naturalistic theories of the origin of life. Using what, exactly?

Using the same science common to scientists of both creationist and evolutionist persuasions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
True. But that is not my point. It is not the actuality of the atheist's accountability, but their recognition of that accountability - that is where the nightmare begins!
If Christianity is right they are sinners. They will face hell for that sin. Again recognising or rejecting evolutionary theory won't change that. God has never said all those who are saved are those who reject Darwinian theory of evolution. That would have certainly made an interesting 11th Commandment though.

The only way, according to Christianity, to save oneself is through accepting the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. You will be no more saved by doing this and rejecting evolutionary biology.

Again I totally agree. I never said anything different.

I don't know where you have been getting your theology from Wolfsbane, but if it is from Creationist website stating that rejection of evolution is necessary to save oneself from accountability for sins, that would be a rather un-Christian message.

Indeed it would - but I've never encountered a creationist web-site that taught such a thing. You seem to be missing my point: the night-mare evolutionists are desperate to avoid is the realization they are accountable for their sins. They are accountable for their sins, whether they believe that or not, but they do not want to be forced to admit that to themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Well, I try to keep to imaginable probabilities.
Do you think 100 years ago they could imagine quantum mechanics (I know you reject quantum theory, but assume for a minute you don't). Limiting what you think can happen to what you can only imagine limits reality to what you can imagine. And it shouldn't have to be pointed out to you that reality has no requirement to be limited by your imagination.

I agree. But you do not, I'm sure, think that all possibilities are equally likely. If your favourite falls, you normally look to the next most likely, rather than wait indefinitely for one you like better. Unless you KNOW the next likely candidate is wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If this 'apparently fine-tuned' earth is incapable of forming life naturally, it would be a very desperate hope the atheist would have in appealing to an unimaginable better scenario elsewhere.
That is some what of an irrelevant proposition since we have no idea where the Earth falls in terms of places that could produce life externally to Earth. The only science so far that does actually do this, you reject because it contradicts the Bible. So you can't use that to say anything about the properties of Earth in relation to the rest of the universe.

Of course I don't reject the science that tells us how fine-tuned earth-life is. Just the narrow version that says it all came about by chance.

You claimed that if we ruled out life arriving naturally on Earth we could rule out all naturalistic explanations.

You seem to be just assuming the answer you want. Which is odd because you complain about others doing that.

The only natural alternative is an appeal to the unimaginable unknown. In the face of what appears to be intelligent design both of the biosphere and the circumstances that permit it.

*******************************************************************
1 Peter 1:10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 12 To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things which angels desire to look into.

Keylem

Amber Fossils Destroy Evolution

Not sure how to embed a youtube vid

Anyhow what are your thoughts on amber fossils?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6rvCR5TmkA&feature=player_embedded

himnextdoor

Keylem wrote: »

Amber Fossils Destroy Evolution

Not sure how to embed a youtube vid

Anyhow what are your thoughts on amber fossils?

One-hundred million years is the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. What the video fails to point out is that those creatures trapped in amber have a common ancestry. Neither does it point out that some of these creatures have descendants that do not resemble them at all; there are lots of different types of ant, bee, scorpion, etc., all of which are the result of diversification.

You see, random mutations are not restricted to genetic defects resulting from molecular damage. Diet plays a role too, nutrients, or a deficiency of nutrients can affect cell behaviour.

The fact that bees evolved to collect nectar for food and the fact that flowers produce nectar that can be collected by bees for reproductive purposes means there has been no dietary need to change their basic design; severe adaptation of bees hasn't been necessary.

Same with crocodiles; they became top of the food chain and had no need to evolve further.

But change the diet and the chemical composition of an organism is changed and there is thus pressure for evolutionary change.

himnextdoor

Keylem wrote: »

Amber Fossils Destroy Evolution

Not sure how to embed a youtube vid

Anyhow what are your thoughts on amber fossils?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6rvCR5TmkA&feature=player_embedded

So are we all agreed that the Earth is at least 450-million years old?

(p.s. The 'Amber Record' won't be a 'hit' with J C.)

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

Well, at least there seems to be a consensus among both creationists and evolutionists that the other (non-evolutionary) naturalist explanations have been overthrown. I'm taking their word on it.

The "evolutionists" base that consensus on the success of Darwinian evolution.

If the Creationist have, as they claim, demonstrated that evolutionary theory cannot produce life on Earth, then how is there a consensus?

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, not the ones we haven't thought of yet. But we operate in the real world, so if there is nothing we can even think of, it will not be a great excuse for us ignoring what seems to be more likely candidates.

It is not about an excuse, it is about demonstrating one theory accurate. You don't do that by simply saying you can't think of anything else.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Models of evolution do not demonstrate it happens. Just how it might happen. Repeatable experiments are entirely different in quality of 'proof'.

No one mentioned anything about proof. But evolution models how life may develop. The model might be wrong, but it is still a model. And through testing the predictions of the model against observations scientists can assess its accuracy.

Now tell me, how are scientists supposed to model God creating life on Earth, and thus match the model against observations to assess how accurate the model is?

If they cannot do that they cannot be doing science. Can you explain how they do that?

wolfsbane wrote: »

When I said 'happy', I was not referring to intellectual satisfaction in scientific discovery, but to their emotional relief in not having to face the existence of God.

But your claim is that atheist scientists are lying about evolution. So where does the emotional relief come from? Surely lying against God just pisses him off even more?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, of course those theories also contradict the Biblical account - and so are wrong.

How very un-scientific of you

wolfsbane wrote: »

But my confidence relates also to the consensus of scientists of both creationist and evolutionist persuasion.

Again these other theories are disproven using the science you reject. Thus it is illogical to accept their conclusions that these other theories have no merit while rejecting the conclusion that Darwinian evolution is the most accurate theory.

You seem to only want to use science when it suits you, and are happy to reject scientific conclusions when they don't suit you.

How very Creationist of you

wolfsbane wrote: »

You infer creationism rejects much of that - it doesn't.

Young Earth Creationism does. It reject huge areas of physics and chemistry along with biology, because the conclusions of these theories is that the Earth and Universe is far older than the Bible states. The number of theories that are invalid if this is true is huge, everything to theories on heat to light to electromagnetic radiation to atomic theory.

If you are talking about Old Earth Creationism then obviously that number will be much lower.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It rejects many inferences scientists draw from the facts in those fields.

Facts are simply repeated observations. Theories are what are the heart of science, the models that attempt to explain the facts.

YEC rejects most if not all of the modern theories in physics and chemistry. You cannot have a 6,000 year old Earth and have modern physics work.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Again I totally agree. I never said anything different.

You said that scientists who accept evolution do so in order that they do not have to face God's judgement. This seems not to be the case.

wolfsbane wrote: »

the night-mare evolutionists are desperate to avoid is the realization they are accountable for their sins.

Accepting evolutionary biology will not make them un-accountable for their sins, so your theory as to why they accept evolution seems to have little merit behind it. You seem to have not thought this through.

Has it occurred to you that maybe they accept evolution because it is the most supported and accurate theory?

wolfsbane wrote: »

They are accountable for their sins, whether they believe that or not, but they do not want to be forced to admit that to themselves.

Wouldn't that not be true irrespective of what evolution says?

Again I'm not following how you think scientists believe they will not be accountable for their sins if they only accept evolutionary biology?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree. But you do not, I'm sure, think that all possibilities are equally likely.

I've no idea. That is why we have science in the first place, to assess the accuracy of any particular claim. Until we can do that we have no idea which claim is or isn't likely.

You seem to only think we should study or accept things that are intellectually pleasing to you? You appreciate I hope that this is un-scientific?

wolfsbane wrote: »

If your favourite falls, you normally look to the next most likely, rather than wait indefinitely for one you like better. Unless you KNOW the next likely candidate is wrong.

You "look" to which ever claim can be supported with the scientific method.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Of course I don't reject the science that tells us how fine-tuned earth-life is. Just the narrow version that says it all came about by chance.

Science doesn't say it came about by chance. Science says it came about by the laws of chemistry. What set those laws at the big bang is anyone's guess.

Again the only planet we know of that could support life does support life. Life does not seem to be all that unusual.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The only natural alternative is an appeal to the unimaginable unknown.

The natural alternative is to look at what ever can be supported by science

A theory does not become accepted as accurate simply because you cannot think of an alternative. It becomes accepted as accurate through testing, or rejected as inaccurate if it turns out to be the case.

You have a very funny idea of what science is Wolfsbane.

wolfsbane wrote: »

In the face of what appears to be intelligent design both of the biosphere and the circumstances that permit it.

How thinks look is irrelevant. Light looks like it is moving through an ether. In reality it isn't. Things look like they are solid, in reality they aren't (atoms are mostly empty space).

Like I said you have a very funny idea of what science is Wolfsbane. I've told you this before so I don't hold out much hope you will listen this time, but science is not just looking at stuff and having a guess as to what you think is happening.

Zombrex

Keylem wrote: »

Amber Fossils Destroy Evolution

Not sure how to embed a youtube vid

Anyhow what are your thoughts on amber fossils?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6rvCR5TmkA&feature=player_embedded

Same as any fossil. Consistent with Darwinian evolution. In consistent with Creationism.

How does Creationism explain a 20 million year old fossil in amber?

Keylem

Wicknight wrote: »

Same as any fossil. Consistent with Darwinian evolution. In consistent with Creationism.

How does Creationism explain a 20 million year old fossil in amber?

No transitional fossil records.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1535

http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number5/darwin5.htm

himnextdoor

Keylem wrote: »

No transitional fossil records.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1535

http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number5/darwin5.htm

Well Keylem, your desperaion shows; there is absolutely nothing here to 'debunk' (do you know the meaning of this word?) the theory of evolution.

There is no such thing as magic. There, Intelligent Design and Creationism 'debunked'.

Zombrex

Keylem wrote: »

No transitional fossil records.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1535

http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number5/darwin5.htm

This how Creationists define what a transitional fossil should be like. It isn't a concept found in Darwinian evolution, it is something Creationists imagined because most seem to not understand evolution very well (which isn't surprising since most Creationists are not biologists)

Darwinian evolution says that all species are transitional between the previous form and the next form. There is no difference between a transitional fossil and a regular fossil, they are the same thing. And this is what we find when compiling the fossil record. You do not find species with half an arm, or half a leg just there providing no function. You find species with a particular phenotype and then in later species this phenotype, due to mutational changes, has a different function.

In fact the Creationist notion of a transitional fossil would actually disprove Darwinian evolution, since natural selection will not select significant features that provide no function.

No transitional fossils (as Creationists use that term) is a good thing for Darwinian evolution.

The Mad Hatter

Wicknight wrote: »

In fact the Creationist notion of a transitional fossil would actually disprove Darwinian evolution, since natural selection will not select significant features that provide no function.

Quoted and bolded for emphasis. Creationists always miss this point.

The Mad Hatter

Actually, here's a useful thought exercise. Wolfsbane and Soul Winner, if you would be so kind, could you post in a few paragraphs how you think the theory of evolution by natural selection is supposed to work? Never mind the veracity, just say what you think evolution is.

virmilitaris

himnextdoor wrote: »

One-hundred million years is the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. What the video fails to point out is that those creatures trapped in amber have a common ancestry.

What that video fails to point out is that many of those 'creatures' are not real.

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

http://www.grahamowengallery.com/fishing/Atlas-of-Creation.html
From the website of a fly fishing lure creator.

Several photos of my insect replicas were published in the Atlas of Creation, without my knowledge, and presented as purportedly real living creatures, to be compared with fossilized specimens, to disprove the theory of evolution.

I'm sure the publisher was perplexed upon realizing some of the bugs in the lavish hard bound book are instead realistic fishing lures.

The author was contacted with respect to unauthorized publishing of my copyrighted photos, without reply, although the internet version of the book was subsequently altered, with my fishing lures removed.

J C

PDN wrote: »

It happens remarkably quickly. I was in an African-American barber's shop in Memphis a few years ago and was totally unable to communicate to the young man cutting my hair how I wanted it. His language was a one-generation evolution of street slang and, although evidently based on English, I couldn't understand a word of it. It ended up with the whole shop laughing at us both.

Hundreds of Distinct languge groups/kinds ... and rapid 'evolution' within each languge group ... sounds just like what happened with the creation of life to me!!!

I'm a language creationist ... as well as a life creationist!!:)

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Yes, sadly, we do. Search this thread for mention of the tower of Babel.

... why 'sadly'???

... don't worry ... be happy!!!

... and go get Saved!!:)

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Keylem
Amber Fossils Destroy Evolution

Not sure how to embed a youtube vid

Anyhow what are your thoughts on amber fossils?

virmilitaris
What that video fails to point out is that many of those 'creatures' are not real.

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

http://www.grahamowengallery.com/fishing/Atlas-of-Creation.html
From the website of a fly fishing lure creator.

The Atlas of Creation's central tenet is upheld ... that many creatures alive today are identical to fossils that are millions (often hundreds of millions) of evolutionist years old!!!

It is an amazing book ... and just because there are a few errors in a few of the photos (about a half a dozen) out of thousands of photos ... the basic message of the fossil record in the Atlas of Creation is loud and clear ...

... many creatures alive today are identical to fossils that are millions (often hundreds of millions) of evolutionist years old ... and therefore evolution from ponkind to mankind is a 'dead duck' ... or possibly even a 'living (i.e. unchanging) fossil'!!!

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

So are we all agreed that the Earth is at least 450-million years old?

(p.s. The 'Amber Record' won't be a 'hit' with J C.)

It is actually a 'hit' with me ... it is an amazing, high quality, well researched book ... and quite devastaing to evolution.

I don't have to accept everything about somebody to recognise and praise excellence when I see it ... and this book is excellent in it's production and devastating (to materialistic evolution) in its content!!!:eek:

I disagree with the 'hundreds of millions of years' ... but the book is all the more devastating to evolution by using 'old earth' / evolutionist timeframes!!!

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

One-hundred million years is the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. What the video fails to point out is that those creatures trapped in amber have a common ancestry. Neither does it point out that some of these creatures have descendants that do not resemble them at all; there are lots of different types of ant, bee, scorpion, etc., all of which are the result of diversification.

You see, random mutations are not restricted to genetic defects resulting from molecular damage. Diet plays a role too, nutrients, or a deficiency of nutrients can affect cell behaviour.

The fact that bees evolved to collect nectar for food and the fact that flowers produce nectar that can be collected by bees for reproductive purposes means there has been no dietary need to change their basic design; severe adaptation of bees hasn't been necessary.

Same with crocodiles; they became top of the food chain and had no need to evolve further.

But change the diet and the chemical composition of an organism is changed and there is thus pressure for evolutionary change.

... so basically ... we can't see any macro-evolution of any thing ... but we should trust you that it occurred ... because you are an evolutionist!!!!:eek::)

... the big irony, of course, is that many evolutionists on this thread scoff at Creationists who are people of both science ... and faith based on observed reality!!!:D

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

... so basically ... we can't see any macro-evolution of any thing ... but we should trust you that it occurred ... because you are an evolutionist!!!!:eek::)

We see it all the time and I should inform you that posting a couple of :eek: followed by the odd and finishing with the occasional does not qualify as a cohesive argument.

J C wrote: »

... the big irony, of course, is that many evolutionists on this thread scoff at Creationists who are people of both science ... and faith based on observed reality!!!:D

:eek::eek::):D

Checkmate! :cool:

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

We see it all the time and I should inform you that posting a couple of :eek: followed by the odd and finishing with the occasional does not qualify as a cohesive argument.

:eek::eek::):D

Checkmate! :cool:

It all depends on what is written before and between the smileys!!!!:)