Is Mr Poots Someone Fit To Lead A Political Party In The 1St Century?

[Atheist]

Someone who puts his religious belief above the scientific consensus.

[Peter Pedant]

hello babies
have we noticed that creation of the world in genesis is not counted as a miracle
and the miracle at Cana - er is ( said to be a miracle )

first sign in John ( stop - no fooing please until the end)

and yes contemporaneously I am sure Jews said: I was fooing there and it was water, or cheap stuff ! and others: no it was the best stuff. - go again I will,

and I can be certain that John ( we are on first name terms) didnt write the miracle in order the contrast it with the world creation.

he wished 1. to deccribe a sign. 2. involve the Virgin ( one blessed) - and her intervention ( do whatever he says)
( Ὅ τι ἂν λέγῃ ὑμῖν, ποιήσατε.) - 3. what is it to me: my time has not come. 4. do something remarkable to foretell other remarkable things

creation of the world was an explanation

sorry to separate the two: I hope I hvent spoilt you fun
carry on boys and girls !

[Peter Pedant]

you may foo
I thought you were all very good not to foo when I quoted the now obligatory Greek

[naomi24]

Ellipsis, //Clearly it is not irrefutable, as Poots does refute it. It's an act of faith, much like believing in any other miracle.//

He refutes it without evidence to support his refutation. Faith is a very long way from reason.

[Ellipsis]

Point is, PP, that I am not comforted by the fact that my PM, my Head of State, my Lords Spiritual, etc etc, believe in miracles, any more than I am by the fact that Edwin Poots is the elected leader of the DUP with his unscientific creationist views.

[piggynose]

is foo an euphemism?

[Ellipsis]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foobar

[piggynose]

Yes ellipsis thanx for that. But it seems our eminent aber mr pp, uses it differently.

[Ellipsis]

As a "placeholder name", it can mean almost anything you want it to mean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placeholder_name

[Peter Pedant]

Foo: empty comment, which contributes nothing
but is quite fathomlessly stupid and masquerades as a crushing one liner. crushing, unanswerable and victorious

here is one: More a Noo Laybore luvvy,
a nothingness. no one would miss if it were not there

who is he then? following a mention of Churchill, Attlee, Asquith

reader - they are everywhere on AB - like vermin or dandelions - nettles

no one has mentioned Mr Pooter from Diary of a Nobody - George and Weedon Grossmith - the hit of 1895

[jno]

ah, many are called to high office by God, much as Charles I thought he was.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/28/scott-morrison-is-not-the-first-prime-minister-with-religious-beliefs-what-is-different-this-time

[jno]

Ellipsis, refute isn't the same as rebut. Refute means "disprove", not just "deny" or "disagree with". Poots can claim to have refuted what he wants, it doesn't make it so.

[Atheist]

PP Emmie referenced Charles Pooter at 04:26. And that sweet Scottish lass had just mentioned him and his bath-painting, but not by name.

[Peter Pedant]

in between the dandelions Atheist
there are sweet roses

wd there be any of this if he were Mad Dog Dongle (*)
or Eddie - eddie the killer - Mc Strangle

what is in a name indeed

(*) calling him Butch Dingle Dongle wd get you a slashing at least

[Peter Pedant]

jno
far too technical for the eight year olds

one dear lady couldnt grasp (on creation I think) - if you can prove X then there wont ever be a proof of not-X ( if there is, the system is inconsistent and therefore everything can be proven) Turing 1940 saw this in the Bombes he made - and why they whizzed around so fast. If the 'solution' (+) was inconsistent then everything was true, short circuit and you went onto the next solution - click

There may be a refutation - but that is not "a proof of not - "

refutation here is a narrowly defined set of sentences which leads to an inconsistency. ( er clearly not a proof)

Skolem showed in 1918 any refutation had a finite basis
which implied any proof had a finite basis, and so there must be some things true which cd not be proven ( = Godel, 1931)

but you know - completely unsuitable for AB
jno - crezzy thang

+ german enigma codes. each wrong'solution' made everything true so every letter connected to every other letter and there was a short circuit. Well he was Turing

[*Fooing can now begin - I suggest - who Turing: Who Godel: who Skolem for starters Who in hell Godell? yay- foo now!]

jno you are just creating foo for yourself -- PP sighs resignedly

[Peter Pedant]

// ah, many are called to high office by God, much as Charles I thought he was.//

yeah but no but - altho it is not the way round it was
the puritans cd not cut off his head until they had decided he was not ordained by God to reign

Chazza said that he was ordained by God to reign so they cdnt ( try him or kill him) -
and he kinda had the Bible on his side - solomon the king and nathan the prophet - may he reign for ever - and ever - alleluia!

[Ellipsis]

Poots refutes ...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute

Definition of refute
transitive verb
1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
2: to deny the truth or accuracy of
// refuted the allegations