responding to common objections to bible part 7

[Papewaio]

Got to remember that science is also full of prophecies (theories) that are predictions that have been proven true again and again both during the lifetime of the writer and beyond.

Has a creation story that accurately describes the start of the universe and why we have so much hydrogen and even the ratio of neutrons to hydrogen in the universe.

[Kadagar_AV]

Got to remember that science is also full of prophecies (theories) that are predictions that have been proven true again and again both during the lifetime of the writer and beyond.

Has a creation story that accurately describes the start of the universe and why we have so much hydrogen and even the ratio of neutrons to hydrogen in the universe.

Refreshing perspective, cheers :)

[total relism]

This will be my last post related to anything involving creation vs evolution, it is so hard as it my fav subject and there is so much claims and misinformation out there, but i must save for that as a topic thread.

TR, you can have a PHD and still be a complete religious nutter.

Try making an actual scientific peer revised report on the matter? It has been tried, you know. In all manners of ways.

It's just that your case gets laughed away just so easily...

I agree fully, but your moving the goal post


What Is “Moving the Goalpost?”
The “Moving the Goalpost” logical fallacy is another one that has a fairly descriptive name. It is the case when Person A makes a claim, Person B refutes it, and Person A moves on to a new or revised claim, generally without acknowledging or responding to Person B’s refutation. Hence, the goalpost of the claim has been shifted or moved in order to keep the claim alive.


read your previous post. I will show many a religious nut job evolutionist on my thread.



you said
"It's just that your case gets laughed away just so easily..."

i could not agree more, i will post debates between phd vs phd when i do my thread. We will see who gets to laugh more.

Well, duh. If they say something that goes against the infallible bible then they are just atheist evilusionists who spreads satanic lies.

There is nothing like a good case of science denial and religious fanaticism. Yummy!

please provide examples of this from creationist when i do my thread, specific examples, otherwise you look like a indoctrinated bigot. I however will take this and turn it on your belief system, I will show many clear cases of science denial and religious fanaticism, Delicious.

Got to remember that science is also full of prophecies (theories) that are predictions that have been proven true again and again both during the lifetime of the writer and beyond.

Has a creation story that accurately describes the start of the universe and why we have so much hydrogen and even the ratio of neutrons to hydrogen in the universe.

amen to that sister, science is great, people and certain models have made bad predictions and false ones [evolution] but science has not nor can it. You also unkowigley bring out a false prediction and minor problem for the big bang here lol. Biblical predictions will be part of my op on thread. I am glad so many seem interested, it always is my best most posted on thread topic, no matter what forum.

[HoreTore]

I agree fully, but your moving the goal post


What Is “Moving the Goalpost?”
The “Moving the Goalpost” logical fallacy is another one that has a fairly descriptive name. It is the case when Person A makes a claim, Person B refutes it, and Person A moves on to a new or revised claim, generally without acknowledging or responding to Person B’s refutation. Hence, the goalpost of the claim has been shifted or moved in order to keep the claim alive.

You even failed at understanding a fallacy.

It would have been a case of moving the goalposts if Kadagar stated that "noone with a PHD can believe in creationism", or something along those lines. He made no such statement, and so did not commit the fallacy you claim. In fact, your claim that he did so is a....

Strawman.

Don't play with fallacies until you're older, son.

[total relism]

You even failed at understanding a fallacy.

It would have been a case of moving the goalposts if Kadagar stated that "noone with a PHD can believe in creationism", or something along those lines. He made no such statement, and so did not commit the fallacy you claim. In fact, your claim that he did so is a....

Strawman.

Don't play with fallacies until you're older, son.

b-4 you get to excited, please read what i was responding to. he said this



To be able to think the Bible explain physics, I for one think one have to be insane, uneducated, or religiously brainwashed.

Quite possibly a combination of more than one factor.

The universe is a great and wondrous thing, and I must quite frankly say I get upset when people try to diminish the sheer WORK of humanity's combined intelligence to reach where we are today.




the bolded section is what i was responding to originally, before he than re-posted this




TR, you can have a PHD and still be a complete religious nutter.

Try making an actual scientific peer revised report on the matter? It has been tried, you know. In all manners of ways.

It's just that your case gets laughed away just so easily...




notice it is no longer uneducated or about science, science discovery. But a supposed peer review process that suposidley creationist have not done [false] and laughing.

[HoreTore]

Yes, thank you for making it clear how little you understand.

Kadagar's original claim was that P was true if A, B or C was present. You disproved B, and claim that this disproves P(strawman). When he then responds by expanding on C, you make a false claim that he is moving the goalposts.

[Pannonian]

Yes, thank you for making it clear how little you understand.

Kadagar's original claim was that P was true if A, B or C was present. You disproved B, and claim that this disproves P(strawman). When he then responds by expanding on C, you make a false claim that he is moving the goalposts.

I found a video online where some creationist nut claimed that there are too few fossils to account for the difference between lizards and man. Quite apart from how this demonstrates that he doesn't know what he's talking about, I also found his looks hilarious. Blond slicked back hair, smirking face. Exactly the kind of face that would seem attractive to believers, but would make me think, me if I'm going to listen to this smug .

I miss that time when Navaros admitted that creationism wasn't the whole story.

[total relism]

Yes, thank you for making it clear how little you understand.

Kadagar's original claim was that P was true if A, B or C was present. You disproved B, and claim that this disproves P(strawman). When he then responds by expanding on C, you make a false claim that he is moving the goalposts.

HT, please read entire posts and my responses. I showed B [uneducated and scientific knowledge]not to be true as you admitted, i never disagreed with him on C [religiously brainwashed] I said [read my post to him] i agree fully and will even provide many examples of such [evolutionist]. A [one have to be insane] was a completely baseless false opinion that i did not think needed responding to. So i never attack anything that was not his position as you claim [straw man] I simply refuted one, agreed with one, and ignored another baseless claim that is easily false. Unless of course you followed his moving the goal post in the next email, and think i was saying i refuted his second email with responce below that he said

"Try making an actual scientific peer revised report on the matter? It has been tried, you know. In all manners of ways.
It's just that your case gets laughed away just so easily..."

if that is the case i earlier said

"i could not agree more, i will post debates between phd vs phd when i do my thread. We will see who gets to laugh more."

also i will respond/refute the rest of his claim when the thread topic has to do with comment.

[HoreTore]

HT, please read entire posts and my responses. I showed B [uneducated and scientific knowledge]not to be true as you admitted, i never disagreed with him on C [religiously brainwashed] I said [read my post to him] i agree fully and will even provide many examples of such [evolutionist]. A [one have to be insane] was a completely baseless false opinion that i did not think needed responding to. So i never attack anything that was not his position as you claim [straw man] I simply refuted one, agreed with one, and ignored another baseless claim that is easily false. Unless of course you followed his moving the goal post in the next email, and think i was saying i refuted his second email with responce below that he said

First off: stop believing other people do not read the relevant posts they are responding to.

The point he was maintaining in his second post, which you claim was a case of "moving the goalpost", was in defense of the actual point he made in his first point: that in order to believe the bible explains physics, you have to be either a, b or c. You responded with the intent of countering his point, and you can't do that by simply refuting one of the three assumptions; you have to take all three down for Kadagar's statement to be shown false.

Your post thus remains a strawman. Or, it could be simply irrelevant and not an argument at all. In either case, Kadagar's point that you have to be insane, uneduated or religiously brainwashed to believe the bible explains physics still stands, and you have offered nothing to counter it.

I also find it hilarious how you apparently rate "debates of phd vs phd" to be a better source of knowledge than, you know, actual sources of knowledge. Like a book. A debate is a show, books are for knowledge.

And no, creation scientists are not published in scientific journals. Their "theories" are lunacy, and are not included in journals dealing with reality.

do they have hundreds of years in advance?

Now looks who's moving the goalposts? How cute.



By the way, my post on the question of Herod and the census was taken directly from a statement from your OP, yet you have not responded to it. I'm not waiting in anticipation, given that you do not have the knowledge required to attempt to counter it.

[Kadagar_AV]

I admire your patience at times, HT.

[HoreTore]

I admire your patience at times, HT.

I've been dealing with a lot of parents this week.

He's hardly any worse....