Not Darwin's Law, it's God's Law.

[Taz]

So the fact that the bible is full of untrue stories is irrelevant?

not at all, the fact you believe them to be untrue is irrelevant......

The fact that bible stories are untrue actually is relevant.

the fact you are an ignorant fool is self evident......

At Bible U, did they teach you to call people names when you don't have an argument?

 

[Taz]

Do you believe in a worldwide flood? No? Then you don't believe the bible.

do you believe this statement to be true?.....if so, then you are irrational......

I was actually hoping to discuss the matter with someone who believes in the bible, not you.

 

[PredFan]

Soooooo......how about it?

Well, for instance try this: What are the odds that all life evolved from a single asexual cell? The odds would be 1 in 10 to the 2,680 power. Virtually impossible.

Not given millions of years it wouldn't. Single cells can split many times in the course of a day. All that DNA mutation and adaptation over millions of years? Not mathematically impossible at all in fact it would be highly unlikely that it didn't evolve.

But I don't really want to argue evolution vs creation, that's been done to death here. I assume you are a Christian, let me ask you this from my OP, why can't evolution be the way God chose to create life?

My Friend, that is the race card of the evolutionist. "Billions of years", "So slow one can't see it happening". The mathematics of it doesn't have a thing to do with time. It would be just as impossible 100 billion years ago as it is today. Impossible means IMPOSSIBLE.

The beauty of mathematics is that mathematics has no champion. Mathematics is blind and deaf. 1 + 1 = 2 without regard as to whether one is a Christian or one is an atheist. The hard and cold truth of mathematics is that it doesn't care whether one is an evolutionist or a creationist, Black or White, a Democrat or Republican.

Here's some more for your consideration: The probability for chance formation of even the simplest form of living organism is 1 in 10 to the 140,000,000 power. By comparison, only 10 to the 20th power grains of sand can fit into a cubic mile.

I stated earlier that the odds of all life evolved from a single asexual cell was 1 in 10 to the 2,680 power. That is an impossibility. Totally an impossibility. For the sake of argument though, let us pretend that it did happen. Now let us see the probability of that single asexual dividing and mutating through the process of natural selection into a 4 cell organism. The hard cold fact is that one could not write out the number of zeros in a day's time to put such a preposterous impossibility on paper.

You can't prove it's impossible with mathematics, you are simply making up the numbers. In addition, you are quoting me odds, given enough time, those odds can be overcome. That's all I'm going to say about that as I have already stated numerous times that the purpose of this thread wasn't to argue evolution's merit, but to ask Creationists if they could consider evolution to be the mechanism that God used to create life.

And I will repeat again for you, time has nothing at all to do with it. The math would still be the same were the time extended to infinity. Of course God could use anything at all he so desired. I fail to see the purpose though. In my own view, God's purpose was to populate the earth. This is why He created Adam and Even and every living thing at the most effective age for child birth and reproduction. I will accept microevolution as reality though.

So you are strictly Creationism?

 

[MaxGrit]

As a conservative who has a love for science, it is a continual source of embarrassment the way that my fellow conservatives act with regards to evolution. We all know that the true idiots are on the left, and this one thing that we fight about drags us down.

My fellow conservatives, why is it so hard to accept that Evolution is how God created living things? What makes anyone think that evolution is an affront to God?

Charles Darwin discovered how God works woth respect to the living world. If you took the time to really look at the miracle of evolution, you would find God's hand there.

The evidence of evolution is there, there is no evidence for Creationism as it is currently defined. In my mind, evolution is how God created all living things. Evolution IS creation.

A lot of mental masturbation to avoid having to admit that the whole god thing is pretty silly.

But, hey, you're not alone in this belief and you're more than welcome to it.

No one is talking to you and no one gives a shit about what an idiot like you thinks.

lol

 

[the_human_being]

Well, for instance try this: What are the odds that all life evolved from a single asexual cell? The odds would be 1 in 10 to the 2,680 power. Virtually impossible.

Not given millions of years it wouldn't. Single cells can split many times in the course of a day. All that DNA mutation and adaptation over millions of years? Not mathematically impossible at all in fact it would be highly unlikely that it didn't evolve.

But I don't really want to argue evolution vs creation, that's been done to death here. I assume you are a Christian, let me ask you this from my OP, why can't evolution be the way God chose to create life?

My Friend, that is the race card of the evolutionist. "Billions of years", "So slow one can't see it happening". The mathematics of it doesn't have a thing to do with time. It would be just as impossible 100 billion years ago as it is today. Impossible means IMPOSSIBLE.

The beauty of mathematics is that mathematics has no champion. Mathematics is blind and deaf. 1 + 1 = 2 without regard as to whether one is a Christian or one is an atheist. The hard and cold truth of mathematics is that it doesn't care whether one is an evolutionist or a creationist, Black or White, a Democrat or Republican.

Here's some more for your consideration: The probability for chance formation of even the simplest form of living organism is 1 in 10 to the 140,000,000 power. By comparison, only 10 to the 20th power grains of sand can fit into a cubic mile.

I stated earlier that the odds of all life evolved from a single asexual cell was 1 in 10 to the 2,680 power. That is an impossibility. Totally an impossibility. For the sake of argument though, let us pretend that it did happen. Now let us see the probability of that single asexual dividing and mutating through the process of natural selection into a 4 cell organism. The hard cold fact is that one could not write out the number of zeros in a day's time to put such a preposterous impossibility on paper.

You can't prove it's impossible with mathematics, you are simply making up the numbers. In addition, you are quoting me odds, given enough time, those odds can be overcome. That's all I'm going to say about that as I have already stated numerous times that the purpose of this thread wasn't to argue evolution's merit, but to ask Creationists if they could consider evolution to be the mechanism that God used to create life.

And I will repeat again for you, time has nothing at all to do with it. The math would still be the same were the time extended to infinity. Of course God could use anything at all he so desired. I fail to see the purpose though. In my own view, God's purpose was to populate the earth. This is why He created Adam and Even and every living thing at the most effective age for child birth and reproduction. I will accept microevolution as reality though.

So you are strictly Creationism?

I suppose one might say that. I don't believe something was made from nothing without an intelligence creating something to begin with. It requires intelligence to make a paper airplane and that is a far cry from being life. If you can tell me from where the atoms or amino acids came from that was supposed to start life, I will listen. I do believe in microevolution or adaptation.

It's not only evolution per se but I submit that there is also an intelligence that holds it all together and prevents everything from flying into each other. Someone keeps order.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Two fools talking nonsense. Faith is not defined by either of them and their reasoning is premised on one fallacious premise after another.

Tyson's stupidity would be annihilated inside five minutes by any one of the great thinkers of theism whom he thinks to be the benighted products of their time. Today, William Lane Craig or John Lennox, for example, would annihilate his stupidity. I can easily annihilate his stupidity. No atheist on this forum, for example, has ever directly addressed my arguments without getting his butt handed to him in short order, and only two of you have tried. The rest always run away.

Tyson's sophomoric, straw-man hermeneutics and his nonsense about Newton supposedly invoking the so-called God in the gaps fallacy are the stuff of hysteria utterly devoid of reason.

Newton did no such thing. Newton saw God in the equations of his laws of motion, and Newton saw God in the equations beyond, knowing full well that there would be more equations to come. Newton did not believe for one moment that the properties, the processes or the laws of the natural world could not be understood by mankind or that those aspects of the natural world that were yet to be deciphered by man constituted . . . what exactly?

The so-called God in the gaps fallacy is the baby talk of atheists imagining that the march of scientific discovery is the systematic elimination of God when in fact it is nothing more than the ongoing discovery of the orderly operations of God’s creation. And with each new discovery comes an unknown number of increasingly more complex problems to be resolved.

No learned, Bible-believing scholar holds that the ancients' prescientific understanding of the natural world was not literal for the ancients or that the discoveries of the scientific era overthrow the fundamental, historic or spiritual actualities of biblical events. For the ancients the world was flat and a geocentric cosmology prevailed. So what? Scientific discovery informs biblical hermeneutics and scripture is not bound by the extra-biblical constructs of prescientific hermeneutics discarded centuries ago. For example, there has never been any monolithic paradigm regarding the duration of the days of creation, the age of the Earth, the age of the universe. . . .

While the Bible contains many scientific facts, affirmed by science, by the way, cosmologically, the Bible is not a scientific treatise. God leaves the details of scientific knowledge to man. Once again, the so-called God in the gaps fallacy is the mythical baby talk of atheistic morons. Theists do not conflate agency with methodology. Atheists are the ninnies who conflate the two.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Do you believe in a worldwide flood? No? Then you don't believe the bible.

do you believe this statement to be true?.....if so, then you are irrational......

I was actually hoping to discuss the matter with someone who believes in the bible, not you.

No.

You want to debate with the straw men of prescientific hermeneutics, most of which are almost exclusively characteristic of Eighteenth-Century fundamentalism, as if these extra-biblical relics of hermeneutics were the essence of divine revelation in and of itself. You're not even aware of the fact that many biblical scholars both before and after Christ held that the days of creation were not necessarily literal, 24-hour days . . . centuries before the era of Bible-belt fundamentalism.

You want to debate with a literal, geographically worldwide flood rather than the dynamics of a deluge encompassing the geographic range of humanity of Noah's time as you ignore the fact that the archeological cannon universally testifies of such a cataclysmic event. You want to debate with young-earth creationists in spite of the fact the Bible doesn't tell us how old the Earth or the universe is. (Hey, know-nothing! Go debate these irrelevancies, including Usher's prescientific genealogy, with young-earth creationists.) You want to confound the ancients' prescientific understanding of geography, geology and cosmology as if the Bible were a detailed scientific treatise rather than what it actually is: a theological treatise addressed to prescientific man on his terms, within the range of his knowledge.

In short, you don't want to deal with learned Bible believers, just like the denizens of the new atheism have become increasingly gun shy of debating real theologians in the last few years after getting their butts handed to them time and time again.





Ultimately, you want to keep running away from the following arguments which none of you atheists can counter:

The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/.


Traditional Transcendental Argument for God's Existence (TAG): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248541/.


The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/.


The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/. ​

 

[PostmodernProph]

So the fact that the bible is full of untrue stories is irrelevant?

not at all, the fact you believe them to be untrue is irrelevant......

The fact that bible stories are untrue actually is relevant.

the fact you are an ignorant fool is self evident......

That doesn't change the fact that so many bible stories are untrue.
.

wait.....do you have some evidence establishing that as fact?......

 

[PostmodernProph]

So the fact that the bible is full of untrue stories is irrelevant?

not at all, the fact you believe them to be untrue is irrelevant......

The fact that bible stories are untrue actually is relevant.

the fact you are an ignorant fool is self evident......

At Bible U, did they teach you to call people names when you don't have an argument?

no they taught us to recognize foolishness and make it evident to people.....if you don't wish to be identified as foolish, I recommend you stop acting foolish.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Do you believe in a worldwide flood? No? Then you don't believe the bible.

do you believe this statement to be true?.....if so, then you are irrational......

I was actually hoping to discuss the matter with someone who believes in the bible, not you.

but you see.....it is not necessary to believe in what you claim about the Bible to believe in the Bible......the Bible is not inaccurate, I am not disbelieving, it is merely that you are an idiot.........

 

[orogenicman]

Two fools talking nonsense. Faith is not defined by either of them and their reasoning is premised on one fallacious premise after another.

Tyson's stupidity would be annihilated inside five minutes by any one of the great thinkers of theism whom he thinks to be the benighted products of their time. Today, William Lane Craig or John Lennox, for example, would annihilate his stupidity. I can easily annihilate his stupidity. No atheist on this forum, for example, has ever directly addressed my arguments without getting his butt handed to him in short order, and only two of you have tried. The rest always run away.

Tyson's sophomoric, straw-man hermeneutics and his nonsense about Newton supposedly invoking the so-called God in the gaps fallacy are the stuff of hysteria utterly devoid of reason.

Newton did no such thing. Newton saw God in the equations of his laws of motion, and Newton saw God in the equations beyond, knowing full well that there would be more equations to come. Newton did not believe for one moment that the properties, the processes or the laws of the natural world could not be understood by mankind or that those aspects of the natural world that were yet to be deciphered by man constituted . . . what exactly?

The so-called God in the gaps fallacy is the baby talk of atheists imagining that the march of scientific discovery is the systematic elimination of God when in fact it is nothing more than the ongoing discovery of the orderly operations of God’s creation. And with each new discovery comes an unknown number of increasingly more complex problems to be resolved.

No learned, Bible-believing scholar holds that the ancients' prescientific understanding of the natural world was not literal for the ancients or that the discoveries of the scientific era overthrow the fundamental, historic or spiritual actualities of biblical events. For the ancients the world was flat and a geocentric cosmology prevailed. So what? Scientific discovery informs biblical hermeneutics and scripture is not bound by the extra-biblical constructs of prescientific hermeneutics discarded centuries ago. For example, there has never been any monolithic paradigm regarding the duration of the days of creation, the age of the Earth, the age of the universe. . . .

While the Bible contains many scientific facts, affirmed by science, by the way, cosmologically, the Bible is not a scientific treatise. God leaves the details of scientific knowledge to man. Once again, the so-called God in the gaps fallacy is the mythical baby talk of atheistic morons. Theists do not conflate agency with methodology. Atheists are the ninnies who conflate the two.

Wow, the ignorance and hate expressed here just takes my breath away. Moreover:

"For example, there has never been any monolithic paradigm regarding the duration of the days of creation, the age of the Earth, the age of the universe. . ."

Erm,

1) Yes there was and still is;
2) Bishop Ussher;
3) Bishop Ussher, and many more.

 

[orogenicman]

Not given millions of years it wouldn't. Single cells can split many times in the course of a day. All that DNA mutation and adaptation over millions of years? Not mathematically impossible at all in fact it would be highly unlikely that it didn't evolve.

But I don't really want to argue evolution vs creation, that's been done to death here. I assume you are a Christian, let me ask you this from my OP, why can't evolution be the way God chose to create life?

My Friend, that is the race card of the evolutionist. "Billions of years", "So slow one can't see it happening". The mathematics of it doesn't have a thing to do with time. It would be just as impossible 100 billion years ago as it is today. Impossible means IMPOSSIBLE.

The beauty of mathematics is that mathematics has no champion. Mathematics is blind and deaf. 1 + 1 = 2 without regard as to whether one is a Christian or one is an atheist. The hard and cold truth of mathematics is that it doesn't care whether one is an evolutionist or a creationist, Black or White, a Democrat or Republican.

Here's some more for your consideration: The probability for chance formation of even the simplest form of living organism is 1 in 10 to the 140,000,000 power. By comparison, only 10 to the 20th power grains of sand can fit into a cubic mile.

I stated earlier that the odds of all life evolved from a single asexual cell was 1 in 10 to the 2,680 power. That is an impossibility. Totally an impossibility. For the sake of argument though, let us pretend that it did happen. Now let us see the probability of that single asexual dividing and mutating through the process of natural selection into a 4 cell organism. The hard cold fact is that one could not write out the number of zeros in a day's time to put such a preposterous impossibility on paper.

You can't prove it's impossible with mathematics, you are simply making up the numbers. In addition, you are quoting me odds, given enough time, those odds can be overcome. That's all I'm going to say about that as I have already stated numerous times that the purpose of this thread wasn't to argue evolution's merit, but to ask Creationists if they could consider evolution to be the mechanism that God used to create life.

And I will repeat again for you, time has nothing at all to do with it. The math would still be the same were the time extended to infinity. Of course God could use anything at all he so desired. I fail to see the purpose though. In my own view, God's purpose was to populate the earth. This is why He created Adam and Even and every living thing at the most effective age for child birth and reproduction. I will accept microevolution as reality though.

So you are strictly Creationism?

I suppose one might say that. I don't believe something was made from nothing without an intelligence creating something to begin with. It requires intelligence to make a paper airplane and that is a far cry from being life. If you can tell me from where the atoms or amino acids came from that was supposed to start life, I will listen. I do believe in microevolution or adaptation.

It's not only evolution per se but I submit that there is also an intelligence that holds it all together and prevents everything from flying into each other. Someone keeps order.

Natural selection is neither nothing nor random. And you are right, it does require a measure of intelligence. For instance, an animal likes to eat ants. Ants realize this and dig deeper. In response, some of the animals have a longer tongue. Those with the longer tongue survive because they can reach the ants. The ants dig deeper still so as not to be eaten. And the animals grow longer tongues. And so on and so on in an arms race that has been going on since life first evolved on this planet. Each lifeform depends on other life forms and visa versa. And so what one does affects the others, and their offspring, and their offspring.

 

[the_human_being]

My Friend, that is the race card of the evolutionist. "Billions of years", "So slow one can't see it happening". The mathematics of it doesn't have a thing to do with time. It would be just as impossible 100 billion years ago as it is today. Impossible means IMPOSSIBLE.

The beauty of mathematics is that mathematics has no champion. Mathematics is blind and deaf. 1 + 1 = 2 without regard as to whether one is a Christian or one is an atheist. The hard and cold truth of mathematics is that it doesn't care whether one is an evolutionist or a creationist, Black or White, a Democrat or Republican.

Here's some more for your consideration: The probability for chance formation of even the simplest form of living organism is 1 in 10 to the 140,000,000 power. By comparison, only 10 to the 20th power grains of sand can fit into a cubic mile.

I stated earlier that the odds of all life evolved from a single asexual cell was 1 in 10 to the 2,680 power. That is an impossibility. Totally an impossibility. For the sake of argument though, let us pretend that it did happen. Now let us see the probability of that single asexual dividing and mutating through the process of natural selection into a 4 cell organism. The hard cold fact is that one could not write out the number of zeros in a day's time to put such a preposterous impossibility on paper.

You can't prove it's impossible with mathematics, you are simply making up the numbers. In addition, you are quoting me odds, given enough time, those odds can be overcome. That's all I'm going to say about that as I have already stated numerous times that the purpose of this thread wasn't to argue evolution's merit, but to ask Creationists if they could consider evolution to be the mechanism that God used to create life.

And I will repeat again for you, time has nothing at all to do with it. The math would still be the same were the time extended to infinity. Of course God could use anything at all he so desired. I fail to see the purpose though. In my own view, God's purpose was to populate the earth. This is why He created Adam and Even and every living thing at the most effective age for child birth and reproduction. I will accept microevolution as reality though.

So you are strictly Creationism?

I suppose one might say that. I don't believe something was made from nothing without an intelligence creating something to begin with. It requires intelligence to make a paper airplane and that is a far cry from being life. If you can tell me from where the atoms or amino acids came from that was supposed to start life, I will listen. I do believe in microevolution or adaptation.

It's not only evolution per se but I submit that there is also an intelligence that holds it all together and prevents everything from flying into each other. Someone keeps order.

Natural selection is neither nothing nor random. And you are right, it does require a measure of intelligence. For instance, an animal likes to eat ants. Ants realize this and dig deeper. In response, some of the animals have a longer tongue. Those with the longer tongue survive because they can reach the ants. The ants dig deeper still so as not to be eaten. And the animals grow longer tongues. And so on and so on in an arms race that has been going on since life first evolved on this planet. Each lifeform depends on other life forms and visa versa. And so what one does affects the others, and their offspring, and their offspring.

That's microevolution which I've stated twice already that I support. I do not support macroevolution. I've already posted the odds of both a single asexual cell and a four cell organism subdividing and mutating via natural selection and challenged you to disprove my calculations. The challenge is still open to you.

 

[the_human_being]

Two fools talking nonsense. Faith is not defined by either of them and their reasoning is premised on one fallacious premise after another.

Tyson's stupidity would be annihilated inside five minutes by any one of the great thinkers of theism whom he thinks to be the benighted products of their time. Today, William Lane Craig or John Lennox, for example, would annihilate his stupidity. I can easily annihilate his stupidity. No atheist on this forum, for example, has ever directly addressed my arguments without getting his butt handed to him in short order, and only two of you have tried. The rest always run away.

Tyson's sophomoric, straw-man hermeneutics and his nonsense about Newton supposedly invoking the so-called God in the gaps fallacy are the stuff of hysteria utterly devoid of reason.

Newton did no such thing. Newton saw God in the equations of his laws of motion, and Newton saw God in the equations beyond, knowing full well that there would be more equations to come. Newton did not believe for one moment that the properties, the processes or the laws of the natural world could not be understood by mankind or that those aspects of the natural world that were yet to be deciphered by man constituted . . . what exactly?

The so-called God in the gaps fallacy is the baby talk of atheists imagining that the march of scientific discovery is the systematic elimination of God when in fact it is nothing more than the ongoing discovery of the orderly operations of God’s creation. And with each new discovery comes an unknown number of increasingly more complex problems to be resolved.

No learned, Bible-believing scholar holds that the ancients' prescientific understanding of the natural world was not literal for the ancients or that the discoveries of the scientific era overthrow the fundamental, historic or spiritual actualities of biblical events. For the ancients the world was flat and a geocentric cosmology prevailed. So what? Scientific discovery informs biblical hermeneutics and scripture is not bound by the extra-biblical constructs of prescientific hermeneutics discarded centuries ago. For example, there has never been any monolithic paradigm regarding the duration of the days of creation, the age of the Earth, the age of the universe. . . .

While the Bible contains many scientific facts, affirmed by science, by the way, cosmologically, the Bible is not a scientific treatise. God leaves the details of scientific knowledge to man. Once again, the so-called God in the gaps fallacy is the mythical baby talk of atheistic morons. Theists do not conflate agency with methodology. Atheists are the ninnies who conflate the two.

I have read with interest many of your posts and arguments. I have witnessed your reducing your detractors to whining and shuddering little nonsensical purveyors of found less asinine arguments of meritless banter. I respect you Sir.

 

[Hollie]

So the fact that the bible is full of untrue stories is irrelevant?

not at all, the fact you believe them to be untrue is irrelevant......

The fact that bible stories are untrue actually is relevant.

the fact you are an ignorant fool is self evident......

That doesn't change the fact that so many bible stories are untrue.
.

wait.....do you have some evidence establishing that as fact?......

Yep. If you ever read any of the bibles, you would know that.

 

[Taz]

Do you believe in a worldwide flood? No? Then you don't believe the bible.

do you believe this statement to be true?.....if so, then you are irrational......

I was actually hoping to discuss the matter with someone who believes in the bible, not you.

but you see.....it is not necessary to believe in what you claim about the Bible to believe in the Bible......the Bible is not inaccurate, I am not disbelieving, it is merely that you are an idiot.........

You don't believe in noah and the flood, as told in the bible. Probably a shipload of other stories as well. You might be a bible aficionado, but you're no true follower of Jesus and the bible. Get over it.

 

[Taz]

Do you believe in a worldwide flood? No? Then you don't believe the bible.

do you believe this statement to be true?.....if so, then you are irrational......

I was actually hoping to discuss the matter with someone who believes in the bible, not you.

No.

You want to debate with the straw men of prescientific hermeneutics, most of which are almost exclusively characteristic of Eighteenth-Century fundamentalism, as if these extra-biblical relics of hermeneutics were the essence of divine revelation in and of itself. You're not even aware of the fact that many biblical scholars both before and after Christ held that the days of creation were not necessarily literal, 24-hour days . . . centuries before the era of Bible-belt fundamentalism.

You want to debate with a literal, geographically worldwide flood rather than the dynamics of a deluge encompassing the geographic range of humanity of Noah's time as you ignore the fact that the archeological cannon universally testifies of such a cataclysmic event. You want to debate with young-earth creationists in spite of the fact the Bible doesn't tell us how old the Earth or the universe is. (Hey, know-nothing! Go debate these irrelevancies, including Usher's prescientific genealogy, with young-earth creationists.) You want to confound the ancients' prescientific understanding of geography, geology and cosmology as if the Bible were a detailed scientific treatise rather than what it actually is: a theological treatise addressed to prescientific man on his terms, within the range of his knowledge.

In short, you don't want to deal with learned Bible believers, just like the denizens of the new atheism have become increasingly gun shy of debating real theologians in the last few years after getting their butts handed to them time and time again.





Ultimately, you want to keep running away from the following arguments which none of you atheists can counter:

The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/.


Traditional Transcendental Argument for God's Existence (TAG): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248541/.


The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/.


The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/. ​

So you agree with me, the bible is crap. Thank you. That's all I was ever saying.

 

[Taz]

So the fact that the bible is full of untrue stories is irrelevant?

not at all, the fact you believe them to be untrue is irrelevant......

The fact that bible stories are untrue actually is relevant.

the fact you are an ignorant fool is self evident......

At Bible U, did they teach you to call people names when you don't have an argument?

no they taught us to recognize foolishness and make it evident to people.....if you don't wish to be identified as foolish, I recommend you stop acting foolish.....

You mean like believing that the stories in the bible aren't true?

 

[Hollie]

Two fools talking nonsense. Faith is not defined by either of them and their reasoning is premised on one fallacious premise after another.

Tyson's stupidity would be annihilated inside five minutes by any one of the great thinkers of theism whom he thinks to be the benighted products of their time. Today, William Lane Craig or John Lennox, for example, would annihilate his stupidity. I can easily annihilate his stupidity. No atheist on this forum, for example, has ever directly addressed my arguments without getting his butt handed to him in short order, and only two of you have tried. The rest always run away.

Tyson's sophomoric, straw-man hermeneutics and his nonsense about Newton supposedly invoking the so-called God in the gaps fallacy are the stuff of hysteria utterly devoid of reason.

Newton did no such thing. Newton saw God in the equations of his laws of motion, and Newton saw God in the equations beyond, knowing full well that there would be more equations to come. Newton did not believe for one moment that the properties, the processes or the laws of the natural world could not be understood by mankind or that those aspects of the natural world that were yet to be deciphered by man constituted . . . what exactly?

The so-called God in the gaps fallacy is the baby talk of atheists imagining that the march of scientific discovery is the systematic elimination of God when in fact it is nothing more than the ongoing discovery of the orderly operations of God’s creation. And with each new discovery comes an unknown number of increasingly more complex problems to be resolved.

No learned, Bible-believing scholar holds that the ancients' prescientific understanding of the natural world was not literal for the ancients or that the discoveries of the scientific era overthrow the fundamental, historic or spiritual actualities of biblical events. For the ancients the world was flat and a geocentric cosmology prevailed. So what? Scientific discovery informs biblical hermeneutics and scripture is not bound by the extra-biblical constructs of prescientific hermeneutics discarded centuries ago. For example, there has never been any monolithic paradigm regarding the duration of the days of creation, the age of the Earth, the age of the universe. . . .

While the Bible contains many scientific facts, affirmed by science, by the way, cosmologically, the Bible is not a scientific treatise. God leaves the details of scientific knowledge to man. Once again, the so-called God in the gaps fallacy is the mythical baby talk of atheistic morons. Theists do not conflate agency with methodology. Atheists are the ninnies who conflate the two.

I have read with interest many of your posts and arguments. I have witnessed your reducing your detractors to whining and shuddering little nonsensical purveyors of found less asinine arguments of meritless banter. I respect you Sir.

Even among the very worst of the charlatans and snake oil salesmen who define christian fundamentalists, William Lane Craig and John Lennox, both have long ago been discredited and dismissed as frauds.

Why dig up the bones of those fossil skeletons?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Do you believe in a worldwide flood? No? Then you don't believe the bible.

do you believe this statement to be true?.....if so, then you are irrational......

I was actually hoping to discuss the matter with someone who believes in the bible, not you.

No.

You want to debate with the straw men of prescientific hermeneutics, most of which are almost exclusively characteristic of Eighteenth-Century fundamentalism, as if these extra-biblical relics of hermeneutics were the essence of divine revelation in and of itself. You're not even aware of the fact that many biblical scholars both before and after Christ held that the days of creation were not necessarily literal, 24-hour days . . . centuries before the era of Bible-belt fundamentalism.

You want to debate with a literal, geographically worldwide flood rather than the dynamics of a deluge encompassing the geographic range of humanity of Noah's time as you ignore the fact that the archeological cannon universally testifies of such a cataclysmic event. You want to debate with young-earth creationists in spite of the fact the Bible doesn't tell us how old the Earth or the universe is. (Hey, know-nothing! Go debate these irrelevancies, including Usher's prescientific genealogy, with young-earth creationists.) You want to confound the ancients' prescientific understanding of geography, geology and cosmology as if the Bible were a detailed scientific treatise rather than what it actually is: a theological treatise addressed to prescientific man on his terms, within the range of his knowledge.

In short, you don't want to deal with learned Bible believers, just like the denizens of the new atheism have become increasingly gun shy of debating real theologians in the last few years after getting their butts handed to them time and time again.





Ultimately, you want to keep running away from the following arguments which none of you atheists can counter:

The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/.


Traditional Transcendental Argument for God's Existence (TAG): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248541/.


The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/.


The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/. ​

So you agree with me, the bible is crap. Thank you. That's all I was ever saying.

Your scholarship is crap. Your hermeneutics is crap. Your understanding is crap. Your attitude is crap.