Creationism, Intelligent Design & Evolutionism
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You are confused between atheists having good reasoning skills and atheism being rational. Just because atheists are rational does not mean that atheism is rational. A rational person can hold irrational beliefs because people are often inconsistent.
A rational person can hold irrational beliefs... and you use that to say that atheist can be rational but atheism is not. In the same way, christians can be rational while christianity can be irrational too right? Since ppl are often inconsistent. -
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
A rational person can hold irrational beliefs... and you use that to say that atheist can be rational but atheism is not. In the same way, christians can be rational while christianity can be irrational too right? Since ppl are often inconsistent.Of course, I agree with you. I was merely making the distinction between the person and his beliefs. I have shown many times why atheism is irrational. But if you can show me why you think Christianity is irrational, I would love to hear them.
By the way, just to recap, I said atheism is irrational because it states that everything came from nothing all by itself. In other words, nothing made everything or the universe made itself from absolutely nothing.
See http://www.allaboutcreation.org/origin-of-the-universe.htm
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Of course, I agree with you. I was merely making the distinction between the person and his beliefs. I have shown many times why atheism is irrational. But if you can show me why you think Christianity is irrational, I would love to hear them.
By the way, just to recap, I said atheism is irrational because it states that everything came from nothing all by itself. In other words, nothing made everything or the universe made itself from absolutely nothing.
Many ppl have stated the irrationality and illogical part of the religion already. No point re-stating here. Is a matter whethere you accept those are irrationality and illogicality. -
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
Many ppl have stated the irrationality and illogical part of the religion already. No point re-stating here. Is a matter whethere you accept those are irrationality and illogicality.Just because many have asserted it does not mean it is true. Like that I also can counter-assert that many have stated that Christianity is rational and no point repeating it, it's a matter whether you accept or not. Is that how you wish to debate things here? Assert and assume but no need to show anything? Show one or two things also can, right?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Just because many have asserted it does not mean it is true. Like that I also can counter-assert that many have stated that Christianity is rational and no point repeating it, it's a matter whether you accept or not. Is that how you wish to debate things here? Assert and assume but no need to show anything? Show one or two things also can, right?
i dont think you get it... nvm... too lazy to repeat EH forums stuffs. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Yes, I noticed you haven't argued anything yet, simply a dismissive remark that my replies appealed to authority.
Anyway, there is NOTHING wrong with appeals to authority per se. We do it all the time when we argue and quote sources to support our views. The issue is whether it amounts to a FALLACIOUS appeal to authority.
You used the creationists when within has so many has different view... the fallacious part is where "Those who advocate a revision of orthodox Egyptian chronology are admittedly in the minority, but their credentials and scholarship are highly esteemed..." and used the bible's timeline to "correct" Egypt's current assumed chronology when its the countries falsifiable chronologies to determine the bible's timeline.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
You used the creationists when within has so many has different view... the fallacious part is where "Those who advocate a revision of orthodox Egyptian chronology are admittedly in the minority, but their credentials and scholarship are highly esteemed..." and used the bible's timeline to "correct" Egypt's current assumed chronology when its the countries falsifiable chronologies to determine the bible's timeline.
thumbs up! -
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
i dont think you get it... nvm... too lazy to repeat EH forums stuffs.I do get it, you want me to simply accept that Christianity is irrational, illogical, false etc etc simply because many have stated it before and you are too lazy to restate them, right? However, for you to say that it is now a matter of my choice to accept that or not is to ASSUME (known as fallacy of begging the question) that your position is true, which is the very thing that you are supposed to prove but which you then say you are too lazy to do so.
But then the point is that I do not accept the views of these people, do you get that?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I do get it, you want me to simply accept that Christianity is irrational, illogical, false etc etc simply because many have stated it before and you are too lazy to restate them, right? However, for you to say that it is now a matter of my choice to accept that or not is to ASSUME (known as fallacy of begging the question) that your position is true, which is the very thing that you are supposed to prove but which you then say you are too lazy to do so.
But then the point is that I do not accept the views of these people, do you get that?
nope you dont... there have been alot of evidences but you are inclined to what you believe. Whats the point of me proving. So you can continue to believe in women coming from the ribs of a man and animals talking and that there has to be a supreme entity -
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
You used the creationists when within has so many has different view... the fallacious part is where "Those who advocate a revision of orthodox Egyptian chronology are admittedly in the minority, but their credentials and scholarship are highly esteemed..." and used the bible's timeline to "correct" Egypt's current assumed chronology when its the countries falsifiable chronologies to determine the bible's timeline.
So what if creationists have differing views? We do not differ on WHAT the Bible says, but we differ on things where the Scripture is silent and where we have to make inferences or deductions. While everything the Bible says is true it does not tell us everything that is true, geddit? So there is always space for differences in view. Why make a big hoo haa over this? Even evolutionists have differences in views though they all dogmatically assert that evolution is true.
You err big time, as usual. The fallible chronologies of man is not used to determine the chronology of the Bible. The Bible has its own determined timeline (see http://www.nwcreation.net/biblechrono.html). The Bible does not depend on secular chronologies to determine its own timeline. Secular history's timeline differs from the Bible's timeline, but why assume that secular time should be correct and used to judge the Bible's timeline? In my view, because the Bible history is correct and sometimes people also get it correct there will be overlaps at various points. This only serves as support for the Biblical record. But where they differ is where we have to look closer. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/doesnt-egyptian-chronology-prove-bible-unreliable
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
nope you dont... there have been alot of evidences but you are inclined to what you believe. Whats the point of me proving. So you can continue to believe in women coming from the ribs of a man and animals talking and that there has to be a supreme entityAnd how are you NOT also guilty of being inclined to what you believe? See how such allegations cut both ways?
I only believe that Eve was formed from Adam's rib by God, not that women come from the ribs of a man. You are distorting my belief.
The Bible recorded just two instances (snake in Eden and Balaam's donkey) where animals communicated intelligibly to humans, and both instances involved supernatural intervention. So it is not the case that I believe animals can talk. Again you distort my beliefs.
Yes, I believe that there has to be a supreme entity, because otherwise nothing makes sense. For you, you have to believe that there is no God, otherwise you would have to live a life that is morally accountable to Him which you do not want. No only that, your atheism does not make any sense of the universe at all.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
So what if creationists have differing views? We do not differ on WHAT the Bible says, but we differ on things where the Scripture is silent and where we have to make inferences or deductions. While everything the Bible says is true it does not tell us everything that is true, geddit? So there is always space for differences in view. Why make a big hoo haa over this? Even evolutionists have differences in views though they all dogmatically assert that evolution is true.
You err big time, as usual. The fallible chronologies of man is not used to determine the chronology of the Bible. The Bible has its own determined timeline (see http://www.nwcreation.net/biblechrono.html). The Bible does not depend on secular chronologies to determine its own timeline. Secular history's timeline differs from the Bible's timeline, but why assume that secular time should be correct and used to judge the Bible's timeline? In my view, because the Bible history is correct and sometimes people also get it correct there will be overlaps at various points. This only serves as support for the Biblical record. But where they differ is where we have to look closer. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/doesnt-egyptian-chronology-prove-bible-unreliable
But you all can have differing/ conflicting views on everything else.... like pyramid is pre or post flood, which is the context currently.
"You err big time, as usual."
Ad hominems are expected from you. Here, have a chill pill.Where was my error if you don't mind pointing out? That bible should not be 1st guidline for other entries chronology? For example, dinosaurs, fossils .... carbon dating etc...
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
But you all can have differing/ conflicting views on everything else.... like pyramid is pre or post flood, which is the context currently.
"You err big time, as usual."
Ad hominems are expected from you. Here, have a chill pill.Where was my error if you don't mind pointing out? That bible should not be 1st guidline for other entries chronology? For example, dinosaurs, fossils .... carbon dating etc...
Two persons having two conflicting views is hardly surprising. We are not saying that both are equally right, mind you. I'm just stating the fact that majority believe pyramids are post flood while maybe a few think it is pre-flood. But both agree got global flood!
Saying you err = ad hominem? Why should it be so when I have already showed your error? Please read my post again. You can't be that sensitive and petty right? Here, have a big chill tablet.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Two persons having two conflicting views is hardly surprising. We are not saying that both are equally right, mind you. I'm just stating the fact that majority believe pyramids are post flood while maybe a few think it is pre-flood. But both agree got global flood!
Saying you err = ad hominem? Why should it be so when I have already showed your error? Please read my post again. You can't be that sensitive and petty right? Here, have a big chill tablet.
So who is right? Majority or minority if it is even a fair bearing of what is being true, according to your objectivity?
Saying that I err as usual is an ad hominem. Please take responsibility of what is being posted. If it is an error to state what is opposed to what you believe, so be it. False dichotomy ending... this is not going anywhere if you keep this up... I say again, I will not be affected by your words.
Please address the right issues before attempting to be personal... aka where is my error? -
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
So who is right? Majority or minority if it is even a fair bearing of what is being true, according to your objectivity?
Saying that I err as usual is an ad hominem. Please take responsibility of what is being posted. If it is an error to state what is opposed to what you believe, so be it. False dichotomy ending... this is not going anywhere if you keep this up... I say again, I will not be affected by your words.
Please address the right issues before attempting to be personal... aka where is my error?The point is, both cannot be equally right. The Scripture is silent. But if you ask me, I think the post-Flood view has a better case. But because it is not something I have to be dogmatic about I am willing to be open to the pre-Flood view.
OK let me qualify then that when it comes to Christianity, you do err as usual.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
The point is, both cannot be equally right. The Scripture is silent. But if you ask me, I think the post-Flood view has a better case. But because it is not something I have to be dogmatic about I am willing to be open to the pre-Flood view.
OK let me qualify then that when it comes to Christianity, you do err as usual.
You have just admitted an ad hominem... As you said, the bible is silent on such matters. The noise comes from champions against others disagreeing with each interpretations. Quantify this: Where is the err? -
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
You have just admitted an ad hominem... As you said, the bible is silent on such matters. The noise comes from champions against others disagreeing with each interpretations. Quantify this: Where is the err?It's not an ad hominem when it is already shown that you have erred many times as usual concerning Christianity.
Where is the err? Read back on the part where I said the Bible provided its own timeline.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
It's not an ad hominem when it is already shown that you have erred many times as usual concerning Christianity.
Where is the err? Read back on the part where I said the Bible provided its own timeline.
Did I say it was wrong thus erred? Pity petty little man that takes every opportunity to bring down an " assumed" opponent by ad hominem. That was the reason those threads were locked.... -
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Did I say it was wrong thus erred? Pity petty little man that takes every opportunity to bring down an " assumed" opponent by ad hominem. That was the reason those threads were locked....
Unless the powers that be on this forum tells us, you can only speculate why the threads are being locked. But for you to call me petty for pointing out your errors is ad hominem. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Unless the powers that be on this forum tells us, you can only speculate why the threads are being locked. But for you to call me petty for pointing out your errors is ad hominem.
I am asking you to quantify your accusation. Where is the err? Stop acting like a pussy and man up stating your accusations clearly. Can you please read up the definition of ad hominem and hopefully understand. Its not but a fairly accurate assessment of your personality. -
What kind of personality has a troll?
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
I am asking you to quantify your accusation. Where is the err? Stop acting like a pussy and man up stating your accusations clearly. Can you please read up the definition of ad hominem and hopefully understand. Its not but a fairly accurate assessment of your personality.
Please go read my post again to know why I said you erred in respect to Bible chronology. -
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Please go read my post again to know why I said you erred in respect to Bible chronology.So you cannot point out where I "err as usual"... and accuse me anyway. Such is BIC's argument...
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
So you cannot point out where I "err as usual"... and accuse me anyway. Such is BIC's argument...
If you can read my earlier post you can see why I said you erred, as usual.