Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[possibletarian]

What has the 50's got to do with anything? probes were being sent to the moon in the 50's not to mention people in the 60's, yet all of the sudden people from the 50's are too stupid to know how the science behind a camera works?

This just goes to show the lengths you guys will go to dismiss any evidence (none of you have access to the original negatives, yet somehow you know better than the expert) that doesn't adhere to your worldview, no matter how much scientific verification...

All the report said was that the film wasn't messed with, not what the light could be, it didn't even touch the subject at all.
I used to throw pictures like that away all the time when i used film, some of them I had no clue where the extra light came from, but the film would have passed the same test.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I see Huggy avoided my point about the expert only being able to say that there was no evidence of tampering and could not explain where the light came from. Which as I said, means nothing because it does not rule out the simplest and easiest explanation that light was deliberately added during development.

[SaStrike]

I see Huggy avoided my point about the expert only being able to say that there was no evidence of tampering and could not explain where the light came from. Which as I said, means nothing because it does not rule out the simplest and easiest explanation that light was deliberately added during development.

YES. Like why claim god TAMPERED with it when clearly the expert said it was NOT tampered with. Sigh.

[Nay_Sayer]

Huggy you have a long way to go.

We have scientifically verified sightings of FSM;



On other planets


Even the ancients new of his truth.


I continue to pray that he guides you with his light from your foggy quagmire of ignorance.

RAmen

[Minimalist]

This was fun but morons like Huggy are so easily fooled because they want to be fooled.

http://en.believethesign.com/index.php/T...Photograph


Hey look.  Paul, John and Ed Sullivan pass muster too.

A Better Explanation?

The picture immediately above on the right was taken in the Sam Houston Coliseum in 1969. At right is Willie Somerset (#12) of ABA's Houston Mavericks basketball team. Note the "pillar of fire" type light by the player's hand. If we zoom into the light by the players hand (see photo on left), we see something that is not that dissimilar to that of the picture of the "pillar of fire" that was photographed over William Branham's head.

Now let's consider Branham's outright lies.... always fun with these holier than thou motherfuckers!

George Lacy was the fifth president of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, which he helped found in 1942. He owned and operated an indepedent forensics lab in Houston, Texas. There are a number of things that William Branham was not honest about relating to Mr. Lacy's involvement with the picture:

1. Mr. Lacy was not an employee of the FBI. He was NEVER the head of the FBI for fingerprint and documents.
   
2. The FBI had no involvement with the examination of the Houston photograph.
   
3. Mr. Lacy lived and practiced in Houston and was not brought from California to Houston to examine the photograph.
   

William Branham appears to have invented all of these various stories in an attempt to hype the Houston photograph.

Go back to sleep Huggy.  Maybe you can dream of holy jewish zombies wandering Jerusalem.

[haig]

Here we go.  I present to you all, Huggy’s irrefutable proof of the Holy Spirit, so we can laugh and move on:

Spoiler alert:

---

It’s a penis.

---

https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/tag/george-j-lacy/

Actually it looks like Odin's sword.

Seriously though, what a big bag of horseshit.

[GrandizerII]

From the same page Minimalist linked to:



There you go, Huggy. It wasn't a halo after all.

[Angrboda]

…and the early church fathers testify to a literal belief in the flood (HERE).  That you want to make a strategic retreat from literalism because your bible doesn't square with the facts means absutely squat.

The facts are not as simple as you say and you dishonestly exclude contrary examples that do not justify your bigotry.

First, you failed to included Origen in your list of Church Fathers: http://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/04/orige...g-genesis/

I almost forgot.  Even Jesus himself treated the flood as literal.  If you can't trust an omniscient God on the subject, then who can you trust?

37 For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.
38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,
39 and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.
Matthew 34:37-39, NASB

[Jackalope]

I almost forgot.  Even Jesus himself treated the flood as literal.  If you can't trust an omniscient God on the subject, then who can you trust?

37 For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.
38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,
39 and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.
Matthew 34:37-39, NASB

INB4 "you're not reading it in the proper context".

[GrandizerII]

I almost forgot.  Even Jesus himself treated the flood as literal.  If you can't trust an omniscient God on the subject, then who can you trust?

37 For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.
38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,
39 and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.
Matthew 34:37-39, NASB

INB4 "you're not reading it in the proper context".

Or "You need the guidance of the Holy Spirit to interpret the verses properly".