I was just given two AiG Newletters.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-03-2012, 02:27 PM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
(27-03-2012 02:23 PM)germanyt Wrote:  This thread turned really shitty over the last few days.
I haven't read most of the recent stuff, only the part of the discussion between myself and SixForty. I thought the discussion I was having was pretty civil. Undecided

Godzilla Kitten, Directed by J.J. Abrams
[Image: Kineoprojectfinished3_zps79916ea4.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2012, 02:36 PM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
I guess I'm just not a fan of mile long walls of text. I really just browsed the last 10 or so posts and was disappointed that we'd gotten off of picking on AiG Christians.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like germanyt's post
27-03-2012, 03:02 PM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
(27-03-2012 02:36 PM)germanyt Wrote:  I guess I'm just not a fan of mile long walls of text. I really just browsed the last 10 or so posts and was disappointed that we'd gotten off of picking on AiG Christians.
Can't say I blame you. Big Grin

Godzilla Kitten, Directed by J.J. Abrams
[Image: Kineoprojectfinished3_zps79916ea4.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kineo's post
27-03-2012, 03:31 PM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
(27-03-2012 02:36 PM)germanyt Wrote:  I guess I'm just not a fan of mile long walls of text. I really just browsed the last 10 or so posts and was disappointed that we'd gotten off of picking on AiG Christians.
Gotta hand it to SixForty, he'd win any long distance Olympic typing competition Tongue

Edit: Although Kineo's last post was pretty epic. I read the whole damn thing too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
27-03-2012, 03:40 PM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
(27-03-2012 03:31 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(27-03-2012 02:36 PM)germanyt Wrote:  I guess I'm just not a fan of mile long walls of text. I really just browsed the last 10 or so posts and was disappointed that we'd gotten off of picking on AiG Christians.
Gotta hand it to SixForty, he'd win any long distance Olympic typing competition Tongue

Edit: Although Kineo's last post was pretty epic. I read the whole damn thing too.
It's like a terrible version of a Lord of the Rings trilogy that no one would ever want to read. No I commend you. Big Grin

Godzilla Kitten, Directed by J.J. Abrams
[Image: Kineoprojectfinished3_zps79916ea4.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kineo's post
27-03-2012, 03:50 PM (This post was last modified: 27-03-2012 03:59 PM by San Onofre Surfer.)
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
Fourty going on six,
You still have not told us when the "moment of conception" is. Obviously you don't know enough biology to do that.
The answer to that question underlies all your religious bullshit about "sacredness". More evasion.
Then we need to know when, exactly, it becomes "sacred", and what exactly "sacred" means. (Don't give us the "look it up crap).
Actually define it, for once.
The positive claim about morality's origin is that it comes from a god. It obviously doesn't So, no, I don't have to prove anything.
All your fallacy this and fallacy that is evasion. You can't refute the arguments.
How did god act, (create) "before" the singularity. Which god was it ?
The "external professionals" you referenced also called it the "moment of conception", in the articles you posted.
A scientific piece of crap. You evade the argument again.
You have absolutely NO PROOF that ANYTHING exists outside this universe. (Speaking of illogical).
And dear, you can't "be angry", unless you first "get angry". Or is she just always pissed off ?
You're making a distinction, without a difference. You still have failed to define "existence".
As far as "ranting away on your own" .. it begs the question ; what exactly are YOU doing here ?
You can't possibly think that any rational person actually thinks YEC is a tenable position,
(other than contortion to validate a religious position which is totally untenable) ?
Did you actually think anyone was going to buy your crap ? If so, you are even more deluded than I thought.
We're still waiting to hear where you got your education, (or are you home-schooled ?)
TTFN

The angry gods require sacrifice. Now get outside and slay them a goat. Cadet in Terse But Deadly
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2012, 09:02 PM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
Someone passed me an AIG magazine. Taking the time to research a rebuttal made me go from a weak to a strong atheist.

Carpe Diem
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Noonespecial's post
28-03-2012, 07:07 AM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2012 07:13 AM by San Onofre Surfer.)
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
(27-03-2012 03:50 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  Fourty going on six,
You still have not told us when the "moment of conception" is. Obviously you don't know enough biology to do that.
The answer to that question underlies all your religious bullshit about "sacredness". More evasion.
Then we need to know when, exactly, it becomes "sacred", and what exactly "sacred" means. (Don't give us the "look it up crap).
Actually define it, for once.
The positive claim about morality's origin is that it comes from a god. It obviously doesn't So, no, I don't have to prove anything.
All your fallacy this and fallacy that is evasion. You can't refute the arguments.
How did god act, (create) "before" the singularity. Which god was it ?
The "external professionals" you referenced also called it the "moment of conception", in the articles you posted.
A scientific piece of crap. You evade the argument again.
You have absolutely NO PROOF that ANYTHING exists outside this universe. (Speaking of illogical).
And dear, you can't "be angry", unless you first "get angry". Or is she just always pissed off ?
You're making a distinction, without a difference. You still have failed to define "existence".
As far as "ranting away on your own" .. it begs the question ; what exactly are YOU doing here ?
You can't possibly think that any rational person actually thinks YEC is a tenable position,
(other than contortion to validate a religious position which is totally untenable) ?
Did you actually think anyone was going to buy your crap ? If so, you are even more deluded than I thought.
We're still waiting to hear where you got your education, (or are you home-schooled ?)
TTFN


(Thanks to all who emailed me the hints).

Fourty going on six,
While you're at at, as I have asked many times, and you have ignored as many times,

a. define "existence", or alternatively, define "being"
b. explain how your god went from a state of non-appeasement to appeasement, AFTER the death of Jesus. While you're at it, tell us where and when EXACTLY the Salvation paradigm arose, and why, and who was responsible for it's introduction, and in what context.

Your Appeal to Authority, (Humphries, and medical experts) is the fallacious use of the (Argumentum ad Verecundiam) argument, because neither he nor they reflect the consensus opinion on the subjects you argue for.

So, almost every scientist in every academic department of Archaeology, Astronomy,
Astrophysics, Botany, Chemistry, Cosmology, Embryology, Genetics, Geochemistry,
Geology, Ichthyology, Immunology, Paleontology, Petrology, Physics, Volcanology,
and Zoology are wrong, and you and the crazyman, (Humphries) are right ?
You are hysterical.

You do spend one hell of a lot of time swatting flys.

The angry gods require sacrifice. Now get outside and slay them a goat. Cadet in Terse But Deadly
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2012, 07:43 AM
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
I gave up on SixForty, mainly because I did not know he typed a reply. xD

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2012, 11:58 PM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2012 12:02 AM by SixForty.)
RE: I was just given two AiG Newletters.
There's a whole lot that you've said here that I'd love to discuss, but don't really have time for at the moment. But I will comment on a few things.

(27-03-2012 02:18 PM)kineo Wrote:  But we've largely reached a point in humanity where we regard these things as wrong- and that they always were wrong. {snip} You want me to recognize an objective law, but I do not.

These 2 statements seem to me to be contradictory. If something was always wrong, how is that not an objective standard? If you do not recognize an objective standard, then how can something have been always wrong?

(27-03-2012 02:18 PM)kineo Wrote:  But the fact remains that neither the Bible nor God has anything to say about slavery being bad

On that we'd have to disagree. Forced slavery, which is what you appear to be discussing here, is definitely classed as bad. Exodus has laws against kidnapping and selling someone into slavery - the punishment is death. So it's definitely discouraged! But the voluntary bond-servitude, which is unfortunately translated as "slavery" in some versions, was a solution to a problem. A solution that everyone involved knew going into it.

(27-03-2012 02:18 PM)kineo Wrote:  We are now morally superior to the Bible in that respect.

Again, this simply comes back to moral objectivity. If objective moral values do not exist, then we aren't superior to the Bible as you claim - we are simply different. Superiority implies a direction towards something better. I don't see how you can claim we are superior without using an objective moral standard to make such a measurement.

(27-03-2012 02:26 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Hmmm, I need to find some more YEC "science" to post.

In the spirit of getting back on topic for you, here's 2 more fun things from a recent AiG publication. (Answers Magazine - Volume 7 Number 1 Jan-Mar 2012)

Quote:A Fin With A Function - The fish in many fish families have a small fin on their backs, called an adipose fin, located between the large dorsal fin and the tail fin. For years researchers believed the fin was a useless leftover from the fish’s supposed evolutionary past, so at salmon hatcheries they would clip the fins as a harmless way to mark each fish so they knew where it spawned.

But a marine biologist in Canada noticed that fish jerked when the fin was cut. After further investigation, he discovered that these fish had to work harder to swim, putting the altered salmon at a disadvantage in the wild.

In fact, the adipose fin contains a network of nerves that likely serves as a sensory organ. Clipping the fin may decrease the salmons’ ability to navigate turbulent waters.

In this instance, it looks like evolutionary assumptions led hatcheries to handicap the very fish they had hoped to save.

Quote:A Humdinger Of A Challenge - Hummingbirds seem to have been designed specifically to defy evolution. Ornithologists have long marveled at their thin wings, which beat at an incredible rate of up to 80 times per second. This blur of feathers allows them to hover near plants that can’t hold their weight. Now evolutionists have another marvel to explain: how the hummingbird's versatile bill “snapped” into place.

The hummingbird’s straw-like bill is excellent for sipping nectar from flowers, but these birds need to consume other types of food to fuel their wings. On a typical day, a hummingbird needs to consume 300 fruit flies or similar insects. While a straw may seem ill-suited for this task, researchers have discovered that the hummingbird’s bill is quite versatile.

Unlike that of most birds, the bone of the hummingbird’s lower beak is designed to flex almost like a diving board. The “springiness” means the beak can widen at the base to create a larger surface for grabbing insects in mid-air. While trying to understand how this unusual design really works, researchers discovered another marvel: the beak snaps shut in less than a hundredth of a second. When the bone reaches its maximum bend, the stored-up energy is suddenly released, causing the beak to snap back.

This is the first time that a “snap-buckling” design, famously employed by the Venus flytrap, has been seen in a vertebrate animal.

No matter how intently some researchers may try to deny the Creator’s handiwork, it snaps right back into focus.

Enjoy! Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: