(October 27, 2015 at 2:44 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: No, dummy. You simply refused to deal honestly with it. I guess even you are smart enough to know when you can't deal with something, though you'll never admit it to us.

You're just mad that I pointed out how stupid your argument is.

I asked what the problem was with plants being created before the sun. Most respondents dodged it. HOC said the problem is photosynthesis. I showed that within the Genesis account, there were two separate reasons why that wouldn't be a problem. Since those reasons are correct, people started tossing in red herrings to try to help you out.

(October 27, 2015 at 2:10 pm)Esquilax Wrote: What kind of world do you live on, where a demonstrably false argument, at every resolution of its claims, is a "refutation"?

I call it the Huggy Syndrome.

(October 27, 2015 at 3:18 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

(October 27, 2015 at 2:10 pm)Esquilax Wrote: What kind of world do you live on, where a demonstrably false argument, at every resolution of its claims, is a "refutation"?

I call it the Huggy Syndrome.

It goes hand-in-hand with focusing on excruciating minutia as well. I guess the strategy is to avoid talking about the real issue via obfuscation.

(October 27, 2015 at 3:11 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(October 27, 2015 at 2:44 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: No, dummy. You simply refused to deal honestly with it. I guess even you are smart enough to know when you can't deal with something, though you'll never admit it to us.

You're just mad that I pointed out how stupid your argument is.

I asked what the problem was with plants being created before the sun. Most respondents dodged it. HOC said the problem is photosynthesis. I showed that within the Genesis account, there were two separate reasons why that wouldn't be a problem. Since those reasons are correct, people started tossing in red herrings to try to help you out.

Gee, you do sound like a 14 year-old. From where did you learn such big words like "red herring?"

You did
Did not
Did too
Did not
Mommy, he hit me
Liar Liar pants on fire

What's really funny is that you knew so little about Genesis in a thread titled "Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?" 

(October 27, 2015 at 3:18 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

(October 27, 2015 at 2:10 pm)Esquilax Wrote: What kind of world do you live on, where a demonstrably false argument, at every resolution of its claims, is a "refutation"?

I call it the Huggy Syndrome.

Which shares quite a few symptoms with the Drippy Complex and the Randy Disorder

(October 27, 2015 at 3:11 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(October 27, 2015 at 2:44 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: No, dummy. You simply refused to deal honestly with it. I guess even you are smart enough to know when you can't deal with something, though you'll never admit it to us.

You're just mad that I pointed out how stupid your argument is.

I asked what the problem was with plants being created before the sun. Most respondents dodged it. HOC said the problem is photosynthesis. I showed that within the Genesis account, there were two separate reasons why that wouldn't be a problem. Since those reasons are correct, people started tossing in red herrings to try to help you out.

D:
Wha...?

You said there was light, and plants can live one day without light. Neither of those two statements mean a plant could live on an earth that has never had a sun. One day without sunlight because it's cloudy is not the same as one day with no sun at all, and one day without sun now is still not the same as one day without there ever having been a sun. You refuted nothing except your own intelligence.

(October 27, 2015 at 1:52 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(October 27, 2015 at 1:37 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: From where?

We're not told the source, but we're definitely told there's light in v3, and the plants don't come until v11.

Quote:Well, if you believe in Genesis literally, I'd say you've got an entire neighborhood of problems ... talking snakes, magic fruits, two different creation stories with different orderings ...

Where would you like to start, BooBoo?

Yes, I'm sure I do, but I addressed a very specific charge which is meritless. If you don't like it, teach your fellows not to make that charge.

Firstly, no one here is "my fellow" and I don't give anyone here orders.

Secondly, focusing on one "very specific charge" in a story shot through with bullshit is like changing the tires on a car with a blown engine. You might look good posing for a shot, but you ain't addressing the real problem ... or my point, for that matter.

More importantly, how was there "an evening and a morning" without the earth being a rotating sphere that orbits a yellow dwarf star?

This version is starting to sound like the two trees from The Silmarillion, Telperion and Laurelin, which gave light before the sun and moon existed.

Good story, bro. Needs more elves.

(October 27, 2015 at 3:35 pm)Losty Wrote: D:
Wha...?

You said there was light,

Yep. We're not told what the source of the light was, but it was there. Assuming it was full spectrum, there was also heat. When I was young I knew a guy who grew pot plants in the space under the steps of his mom's home. They never got light from the sun but did just fine.

Quote:and plants can live one day without light.

Yep. Take a plant and put it in total darkness for 24 hours. It will survive. So, even without the first argument, this position fails.

Quote:Neither of those two statements mean a plant could live on an earth that has never had a sun.

Uh, yeah, either one of them works. You can test it yourself.

Quote:One day without sunlight because it's cloudy is not the same as one day with no sun at all,

Again, you can easily test this yourself.

Quote:and one day without sun now is still not the same as one day without there ever having been a sun.

What's the difference?