Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-03-2015, 09:10 AM
RE: Question about flood
(30-03-2015 08:56 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  
(29-03-2015 07:50 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  ... birds decend from and are dinosaurs.

Only half right. The whole point of evolution is that new species evolve from old ones. Birds descended from one particular dinosaur, but having evolved, they are no longer dinosaurs.

I'm actually impressed by the amount of time that Call of the Wild puts into writing here. It must be just about a full-time profession for him. Of course, his only actual arguments are "I'm right and you're wrong," "The Bible says it," and "I don't care." He doesn't care about the evidence, and has said plenty of times that he has no interest in reading the science because science is "just voodoo." He believes the Bible and thinks it's the only worthwhile source of information. And as he himself has said many times, he doesn't care about anything that contradicts his views.

But he's willing to put hours and hours and hours into repeating these same three things over and over and over. "I'm right and you're wrong, because the Bible says it, and I don't care about logic, reason, or evidence, or even the views of Christian scholars."

The guy has determination. I'll give him that.

[Image: Early_birds_dinosaurs.jpg]

Birds are from a branch of dinosaurs, they are still technically dinosaurs but their classification is Aves (which is a descendent of Theropods).

It is splitting hairs (or feathers if you will) for if they are or are not dinosaurs.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
30-03-2015, 09:34 AM
RE: Question about flood
(29-03-2015 08:51 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I will stick to my sky daddy theory, and you stick to your voodoo science theory. That's all evolution is...voodoo science.

So you're still stuck on the rhetorical grandstanding rather than actually providing an argument, I see.

I tried debating this joker once, TTA peeps. He presented no evidence and continually went out of turn until he eventually got disqualified, but before that embarrassing display he showed that he wouldn't even change his approach in a moderated debate. It was just the same old "I'm right and you're wrong, and nothing you present counts as evidence because I said so," crap he uses here. He's rolling like ten presuppositions deep here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Esquilax's post
30-03-2015, 09:46 AM
RE: Question about flood
(30-03-2015 08:08 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  yeah I figured maybe you hadn't read it, or validated it, or you wouldn't still make ignorant ass assertions like ....

That is nonsense. Because you posted the same crap in the debate that we had (if I'm not mistaken), and I responded to it then.

(30-03-2015 08:08 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  But yet, you do, so either you refuse to accept evidence, haven't bothered to verify widely known facts, or are just too ignorant to comprehend them...which is why I call you the epitome of ineducable tyro. Big Grin

Again, nonsense. First off, you refuse to accept my evidence too. I can easily copy and paste texts from scholars that agree with my position, just as you did with yours. In the end, where does that leave us? The person that copies and pastes more stuff from scholars win?

The bottom line is; I have good, solid reasons why the Gospels should be dated post 70AD, and that they were written by either disciples or friends of the disciples, within the lifetime of the disciples. Those reasons are good enough for me...you don't accept this...fine...just like I don't accept your view.

No robbery in fair exchange. Not to mention the fact that I challenged you to a real-time debate on a different platform, where the transcript of the debate can be posted on this forum for all to see...and you have yet to accept the challenge...yet you continuously post the same stuff over and over again as if I am unable/unwilling to engage you on what you are saying.

tsk tsk tsk Dodgy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 09:55 AM
RE: Question about flood
(30-03-2015 09:34 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  So you're still stuck on the rhetorical grandstanding rather than actually providing an argument, I see.

And you are?

(30-03-2015 09:34 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  I tried debating this joker once, TTA peeps. He presented no evidence and continually went out of turn until he eventually got disqualified, but before that embarrassing display he showed that he wouldn't even change his approach in a moderated debate. It was just the same old "I'm right and you're wrong, and nothing you present counts as evidence because I said so," crap he uses here. He's rolling like ten presuppositions deep here.

Actually, what happened was..I didn't read the rules thoroughly, so I blindly accepted the terms and conditions...come to find out that the rules were so damn STUPID that I wouldn't have agreed to the terms had I thoroughly read them. But its all good, though.

Small thing to a giant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 09:59 AM
RE: Question about flood
(30-03-2015 09:10 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  [Image: Early_birds_dinosaurs.jpg]

Birds are from a branch of dinosaurs, they are still technically dinosaurs but their classification is Aves (which is a descendent of Theropods).

It is splitting hairs (or feathers if you will) for if they are or are not dinosaurs.

Dude, of all of the varieties of birds that there has EVER been, you have a few fossils of birds and you are determining that they evolved from reptiles? That is about as non sequitur as I've seen...which is saying a lot, considering of see a lot of non sequiturs on here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 10:10 AM
RE: Question about flood
(30-03-2015 09:59 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-03-2015 09:10 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  [Image: Early_birds_dinosaurs.jpg]

Birds are from a branch of dinosaurs, they are still technically dinosaurs but their classification is Aves (which is a descendent of Theropods).

It is splitting hairs (or feathers if you will) for if they are or are not dinosaurs.

Dude, of all of the varieties of birds that there has EVER been, you have a few fossils of birds and you are determining that they evolved from reptiles? That is about as non sequitur as I've seen...which is saying a lot, considering of see a lot of non sequiturs on here.

you ever look into any of those texts I provided for you?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 10:51 AM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2015 10:58 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Question about flood
(30-03-2015 09:46 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-03-2015 08:08 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  yeah I figured maybe you hadn't read it, or validated it, or you wouldn't still make ignorant ass assertions like ....

That is nonsense. Because you posted the same crap in the debate that we had (if I'm not mistaken), and I responded to it then.

(30-03-2015 08:08 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  But yet, you do, so either you refuse to accept evidence, haven't bothered to verify widely known facts, or are just too ignorant to comprehend them...which is why I call you the epitome of ineducable tyro. Big Grin

Again, nonsense. First off, you refuse to accept my evidence too. I can easily copy and paste texts from scholars that agree with my position, just as you did with yours. In the end, where does that leave us? The person that copies and pastes more stuff from scholars win?

The bottom line is; I have good, solid reasons why the Gospels should be dated post 70AD, and that they were written by either disciples or friends of the disciples, within the lifetime of the disciples. Those reasons are good enough for me...you don't accept this...fine...just like I don't accept your view.

No robbery in fair exchange. Not to mention the fact that I challenged you to a real-time debate on a different platform, where the transcript of the debate can be posted on this forum for all to see...and you have yet to accept the challenge...yet you continuously post the same stuff over and over again as if I am unable/unwilling to engage you on what you are saying.

tsk tsk tsk Dodgy

No, as usual you are wrong, this isn't a difference of opinion, this is inability to acknowledge fact on your part. There are many philosophical discussions that can be entered where it is all subjective, and opinions can have some weight. Evolution isn't a philosophy, it is based on observable evidence. Religion is based on philosophy, as it has no evidence. Understand the distinction? Evolution is science, 2+2 isn't jesus, it is 4. You can continue to try to convince yourself that the plethora of evidence and findings by experts that show the synoptic gospels were not written when or by whom as per xtian tradition doesn't exist for as long as you like, but that doesn't change the facts.

I have no reason to enter a different venue to debate you, you can't even debate me here, neither can you refute my assertions, nor can you compete with me knowledge wise on the subject of theology. I gave you, and continue to give you, consistent schooling on this subject, yet you cling to delusion and ignorance like a stripper to a shiny pole, refusing to acknowledge even the basics that are accepted by pretty much every biblical historian like the dates and authors of the synoptic gospels for example. You probably believe the exodus really happened too, and noah and moses were actually historical people...these are also long debunked and fully refuted aspects of the fairy tale called Christianity. Your refusal to accept the facts, and refusal to read and learn from the copious amount of material laid before you is just an indicator of the epic level of "inability to learn" you epitomize.

take some courses

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
30-03-2015, 11:23 AM
RE: Question about flood
(29-03-2015 09:33 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So again, you are emphasizing on there being zero evidence anywhere except in the Bible, but what you (and most) unbelievers fail to realize or acknowledge is the fact that the books in the Bible were originally written as independent, separate books.

The books which makes up the Bible wasn't compiled together until hundreds of years later. So that means that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, most of Paul's letters...were ALL originally independent accounts, which means that we have at least five DIFFERENT sources that are testifying to these things, all written during the life time of Jesus' followers.

This is the kind of stuff that historians drool over.

Luke and Paul don't even claim to be eyewitnesses, so their accounts are hearsay. The number of different accounts is not at all impressive if said accounts are hearsay. Furthermore, these are not all independent accounts. The three synoptic gospels have numerous passages that are word-for-word identical. If three people witness the same events and write about them 50 years later, there is no way they are going to write exactly the same words. It is obvious that they either copied from each other, or from some other common source. They are not independent accounts. And the odds are that none of them were eyewitnesses -- i.e., it is most likely all hearsay, written by "true believers". It is no more credible than the Book of Mormon. It is the kind of stuff that historians dismiss.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
30-03-2015, 11:31 AM
RE: Question about flood
(30-03-2015 09:55 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-03-2015 09:34 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  I tried debating this joker once, TTA peeps. He presented no evidence and continually went out of turn until he eventually got disqualified, but before that embarrassing display he showed that he wouldn't even change his approach in a moderated debate. It was just the same old "I'm right and you're wrong, and nothing you present counts as evidence because I said so," crap he uses here. He's rolling like ten presuppositions deep here.

Actually, what happened was..I didn't read the rules thoroughly, so I blindly accepted the terms and conditions...come to find out that the rules were so damn STUPID that I wouldn't have agreed to the terms had I thoroughly read them. But its all good, though.

Well that was pretty stupid.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
30-03-2015, 12:33 PM
RE: Question about flood
(30-03-2015 10:51 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Evolution isn't a philosophy, it is based on observable evidence.

Observation? No, the observation is that we see fossils of once living dead animals. The interpretation of the observation is that these fossils represent macro level transformations of one animal to another animal (reptile to bird).

Do you see how that works? One is a direct observation (discovery of fossils), the other is an interpretation of the observation (evolution). It is a fact that fossils exist, it is an interpretation that these fossils represent macro changes...one is a fact, and the other is an interpretation of the fact.

Evolutionists want to link the interpretation in as a fact along with the observation...and that is where they've left science and dived right into the pool of religion.

(30-03-2015 10:51 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Religion is based on philosophy, as it has no evidence. Understand the distinction?

Christians believe there is evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. Now of course, this doesn't sit well with you atheistic worldview, but oh well.

(30-03-2015 10:51 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Evolution is science, 2+2 isn't jesus, it is 4.

2+2 isn't evolution, either.

(30-03-2015 10:51 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  You can continue to try to convince yourself that the plethora of evidence and findings by experts that show the synoptic gospels were not written when or by whom as per xtian tradition doesn't exist for as long as you like, but that doesn't change the facts.

Dude, are you freakin crazy? You don't know who WROTE ANYTHING in antiquity. You are making it seem as if your "evidences" are infallible or something. As if you were there when the shit was written. You sit there and talk about "facts" as if it is 100% beyond a reasonable doubt that the Gospels were written post 70AD...nothing in history is that certain.

Second, as I said, there are scholars that AGREE with me on this, and some don't...and believe it or not, there are scholars that disagree with you, and some agree with you. That is the nature of the beast, especially when talking about history.

That is why almost every single time I said "I have reasons to believe"...or "The evidence is convincing to me"...meaning that there are arguments on both sides of the coin, and there is where I stand.

But you, on the other hand, make it seem as if your way is the right way, and everyone else that doesn't share YOUR particular view is wrong...which is fallacious, close-minded, and arrogant.

(30-03-2015 10:51 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  I have no reason to enter a different venue to debate you

Then stop posting that CRAP to me, then.

(30-03-2015 10:51 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  you can't even debate me here, neither can you refute my assertions, nor can you compete with me knowledge wise on the subject of theology.

You don't really believe that, do you?

(30-03-2015 10:51 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  I gave you, and continue to give you, consistent schooling on this subject, yet you cling to delusion and ignorance like a stripper to a shiny pole, refusing to acknowledge even the basics that are accepted by pretty much every biblical historian like the dates and authors of the synoptic gospels for example. You probably believe the exodus really happened too, and noah and moses were actually historical people...these are also long debunked and fully refuted aspects of the fairy tale called Christianity. Your refusal to accept the facts, and refusal to read and learn from the copious amount of material laid before you is just an indicator of the epic level of "inability to learn" you epitomize.

take some courses

Let me know when you grow some hair on your chest and will accept the challenge, which still stands, btw.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: