On Jan 31, 12:03 pm, Alastair wrote:
On Jan 31, 12:21 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:



On Jan 30, 7:32 pm, Alastair wrote:

It is not just creationists like Spencer who cannot believe in
Armageddon. None of us wants to believe in that, so we we all dismiss
it. However, it is a fact.

Where do you suppose the term Armageddon comes from?

The meaning isn't well known though. It has nothing to do with Ice or
Glowballs. That stuff is for the four horsemen.

Armageddon concerns human reactions to the things happening.

You might want to check out your facts before you make such silly
comments.

"More generally, it [Armageddon] can also refer to an apocalyptic
catastrophe."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon

Well, Mr Weatherlawyer, it seems that you are also a Sea Lawyer!

Is there anyone that is allowed to disagree with you without some sort
of personal affront?

As I wrote, no one wants to believe we are heading for an Armageddon,
and most people will try to rationalise it away. But your attempt to
prove that catastrophe in not imminent by disputing the meaning of the
term Armageddon really takes the biscuit.

The term refers to a gathering of people who believe they are doing
the right thing over a dispute. The outcome isn't given if I remember
correctly. Read it yourself:
http://scripturetext.com/revelation/16-16.htm

All I was disputing was your right to attack the man's physics with a
canard about his beliefs. All of which is based on a few words on a
political pamphlet.

Speaking as a Sea lawyer, I have to point out the term Armageddon was
used by you and incorrectly at that. I can't see where a link to an
article in the Wikipedia of all places changes that.

Just because you believe that glowballs is irrefutable and passing if
not past the point of no return doesn't turn the perceived catastrophe
as some cataclysmic war.

Or is it the gathering of people who dispute the existence of god that
you refer to?