Results 1 to 30 of 240

Thread: responding to common objections to bible part 7

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11
    has a Senior Member HoreTore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    12,014

    Default Re: responding to common objections to bible part 7

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
    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.
    Last edited by HoreTore; 03-08-2014 at 02:05.
    Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO