(October 27, 2015 at 12:42 pm)alpha male Wrote:(October 27, 2015 at 12:28 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The problem is that now you're stuck ascribing to literal 24-hour day creation, else your second point makes no sense. That form of literalist creationism is demonstrably wrong in every sense we have ever tested.
You've swapped a small problem for a bigger one, and yet you're still wondering where the issue is?
So you agree that I've refuted the small problem, which is all that I was discussing - great!
Oh, you haven't, for the reasons others have said, and if you actually think that destroying the entire foundation the position is built on counts as "refuting" one of the aspects of the argument that relies on the foundation then you're probably too far gone for a real discussion, but thank you for showing us that your real goal wasn't to be truthful, but to shut down conversation so you can be right.
"I've scuttled the entirety of the position, therefore this one aspect of it is safe!" is not a valid conclusion. There is no scorched earth victory in debate. Also, I said you've swapped out one problem for another, not that you've resolved the first problem. God, your desperation to leap to "I'm right!" is just sad.

"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!