Do to really believe a snake talked?!

[Cyberman]

Actually, GC is technically right, by sheer accident and without the capacity to realise why. Given the Solar System's motion around the Galaxy, not to mention the Galaxy's motion through extra-galactic space, the Earth has vastly changed position from four million years ago; vastly, that is, in terms of human experience but relatively nothing on a galactic scale. So while the Earth was certainly here, as in existent and already ancient, it wasn't here in this location.

See, Goddy, reality is far more fascinating than your dusty mythology.

[SpecUVdust]

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=ZSt9tm3Ro...St9tm3RoUU

A must see. Nicely done

---

Just in case people haven't seen these:

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=1PT90dAA4...PT90dAA49Q

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JB7jSFeVz1U

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vlrTVC2tQ

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1HBkZPyfpdE

[SpecUVdust]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=relat...rqqD_Tsy4Q

[Utracia]

Dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, not tens of thousands. My 4 year old knows this.

The earth wasn't here 4 million years ago, you should explain this to them.

You're having fun with us right?

[John V]

Well, you may agree with my argument then but you still haven't answered my concluding question to my argument: Since existence has always existed then, why would we require God for the universe?

Agree with your argument? My point was that you repeat your fallacy, showing that you're incapable of understanding the nature of the fallacy, so there's no point in continuing.

[Edwardo Piet]

So, you think that it's logically fallacious to say that existence is always existent and never nonexistent? Well if you're going to argue that "X is always X and never not X" is a logically fallacious statement then there's no point in continuing, indeed.

[John V]

So, you think that it's logically fallacious to say that existence is always existent and never nonexistent? Well if you're going to argue that "X is always X and never not X" is a logically fallacious statement then there's no point in continuing, indeed.

First, as already noted, a tautology is indeed true, but is regarded as a fallacy because it adds nothing to the argument.

Second, as already noted, you pulled a bait and switch by replacing universe with existence.

Third, which I haven't bothered with before, is that you pull another bait and switch, equating existence with existent. I will indeed argue that X is not necessarily something that sounds a lot like X.