Amen, brother.




(Whoops!)

(June 21, 2011 at 8:07 pm)Epimethean Wrote: So you're just going on belief there.

I just trust the expertise of others just like you do all the time.

---

(June 21, 2011 at 9:14 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Correct, I use logic because I like the results.

Because you like the results? So if someone does not like the results they can choose to be illogical and you'd have no problem with that?

Quote: Plants were created on day 3. Animals were created on day 5 and 6. Humans, both man and woman, were created at the same time after animals.

Yeah, I said plants and animals were created before man.

---

(June 22, 2011 at 12:29 am)Cinjin Wrote:

---

Statler again? Really??

How many times have we seen what is essentially the same argument over and over and over again??

Responding to questions with ludicrous, unanswerable questions. Constant use of the "hebrew context" argument. And the always infuriating - redefining words, like logic, how you see fit.

I'm trying to be more patient and understanding towards YECs like yourself and you're just KILLIN it man!

---

How in any way does using the same argument over and over again somehow magically make it wrong? I can’t tell you how many times I have heard the old, “but God is a big meanie!” argument on here. I will use an argument until someone can actually refute it. Could you also please show where I have used a logical argument incorrectly instead of just asserting that I have? I have been pretty good to you lately and this is how you respond? Childish personal attacks just to try and play to the atheistic crowd are quite frankly beneath you Cinjin.

(June 22, 2011 at 6:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Could you also please show where I have used a logical argument incorrectly instead of just asserting that I have?

naw -
I think anyone here who has gone one on one with you already knows what I was referring to anyway, and I'm just not willing to pick up the same argument where we always seem to leave off. What would be the point.

I'll limit my remarks to your posts in the future if you'd like -- but hey, how will you ever know when your logic is flawed and your arguments are biased??

Quote:How in any way does using the same argument over and over again somehow magically make it wrong?

When it is all based on an absurd book of fairy tales?

Your argument ( goddidit ) always fails in the first three letters because god is merely a belief of yours....not a reality.

(June 22, 2011 at 6:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

---

I just trust the expertise of others just like you do all the time.

Because you like the results? So if someone does not like the results they can choose to be illogical and you'd have no problem with that?

Yeah, I said plants and animals were created before man.

How in any way does using the same argument over and over again somehow magically make it wrong? I can’t tell you how many times I have heard the old, “but God is a big meanie!” argument on here. I will use an argument until someone can actually refute it. Could you also please show where I have used a logical argument incorrectly instead of just asserting that I have? I have been pretty good to you lately and this is how you respond? Childish personal attacks just to try and play to the atheistic crowd are quite frankly beneath you Cinjin.

---

I will use an argument until someone can actually refute it.

"used a logical argument incorrectly" -Statler
used logic incorrectly* The way you had it is a fallacy of assuming the initial point.

"I just trust the expertise of others just like you do all the time." -Statler
Your "just trusting"? You dont care whether their claims are backed by data?
You are also presuming that the person you were talking to blindly trusts experts.

What is your method for when two experts disagree? just trust them both?

(June 22, 2011 at 7:21 pm)Cinjin Wrote:

---

(June 22, 2011 at 6:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Could you also please show where I have used a logical argument incorrectly instead of just asserting that I have?

naw -
I think anyone here who has gone one on one with you already knows what I was referring to anyway, and I'm just not willing to pick up the same argument where we always seem to leave off. What would be the point.

I'll limit my remarks to your posts in the future if you'd like -- but hey, how will you ever know when your logic is flawed and your arguments are biased??

---

Well you just asserting that they are of course does not make it so. How am I supposed to correct the problem if you won't point out where and how I commit it? I guess I will just carry on as usual

---

Quote:

---

I will use an argument until someone can actually refute it.

"used a logical argument incorrectly" -Statler
used logic incorrectly* The way you had it is a fallacy of assuming the initial point.

---

I wish you'd use the quote function, sure would make responding easier. If I present an argument that I feel is completely logical, and nobody refutes that argument; my argument stands un-refuted and I see no reason to abandon that argument.

Quote:

---

"I just trust the expertise of others just like you do all the time." -Statler
Your "just trusting"? You dont care whether their claims are backed by data?
You are also presuming that the person you were talking to blindly trusts experts.

What is your method for when two experts disagree? just trust them both?

---

I will admit, I don't quite follow you on this one. Seeing the Hebrew for myself is not going to help anything. When an expert in Hebrew says that Hebrew verb tenses are determined by context and the verb for "formed" is correctly translated in the ESV as "had formed", then I see no reason to doubt this.

But if that last bit is so, then why question me regarding gullibility on why I find no issue with the earth's age being 4 billion years when all the leading experts in the field agree that this is so?

(June 22, 2011 at 8:55 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well you just asserting that they are of course does not make it so. How am I supposed to correct the problem if you won't point out where and how I commit it? I guess I will just carry on as usual

lol - you and I both know you would've anyway.

(June 22, 2011 at 9:04 pm)Epimethean Wrote: But if that last bit is so, then why question me regarding gullibility on why I find no issue with the earth's age being 4 billion years when all the leading experts in the field agree that this is so?

The age of the earth is a scientific question. Scientific questions are never answered by a simple appeal to majority or consensus. If that were the case Science would never progress because new ideas would be shot down immediately.

---

(June 22, 2011 at 9:20 pm)Cinjin Wrote: lol - you and I both know you would've anyway.

Maaaaaayyyybbbeee

(June 22, 2011 at 9:20 pm)Cinjin Wrote:

(June 22, 2011 at 8:55 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well you just asserting that they are of course does not make it so. How am I supposed to correct the problem if you won't point out where and how I commit it? I guess I will just carry on as usual

lol - you and I both know you would've anyway.

I don't remember which forum it was, but I've seen the same nonsense from Statler Waldorf before, so you're conclusion would seem to be accurate.

---

(June 27, 2011 at 4:56 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The age of the earth is a scientific question. Scientific questions are never answered by a simple appeal to majority or consensus. If that were the case Science would never progress because new ideas would be shot down immediately.

Scientists wouldn't get away with such a popularity contest as there are always other scientists waiting in the wings to rip their ideas to shreds. When such attempts fail, only then is a consensus reached.
In contrast, creationists are always falling over themselves agreeing a consensus first (so long as it accords with their reading of their book of fables), then looking for ways to twist or invent evidence to support their conclusion.