RE: What's up
May 8, 2011 at 10:26 am
(This post was last modified: May 8, 2011 at 10:35 am by fr0d0.)
I looked at those definitions of deny and tested them all against my accusation, and they all failed.
1. to declare (an assertion, statement, etc) to be untrue: he denied that he had killed her
requires statement
2. to reject as false; refuse to accept or believe
requires subject
3. to withhold; refuse to give
required subject
4. to refuse to fulfil the requests or expectations of: it is hard to deny a child
requires request
5. to refuse to acknowledge or recognize; disown; disavow: the baron denied his wicked son
requires wicked son
6. to refuse (oneself) things desired
requires thing
Please try to justify your point and satisfy your own requirement as you accuse me of failing to do.
To us, they don't understand it correctly, but we would be disingenuous to suggest that their position was without reason presented. If Nap is denying something without reason then we can suspect his claim of denial as baseless and therefore not denial surely.
1. to declare (an assertion, statement, etc) to be untrue: he denied that he had killed her
requires statement
2. to reject as false; refuse to accept or believe
requires subject
3. to withhold; refuse to give
required subject
4. to refuse to fulfil the requests or expectations of: it is hard to deny a child
requires request
5. to refuse to acknowledge or recognize; disown; disavow: the baron denied his wicked son
requires wicked son
6. to refuse (oneself) things desired
requires thing
Please try to justify your point and satisfy your own requirement as you accuse me of failing to do.
(May 8, 2011 at 10:22 am)theVOID Wrote:YECs deny evolution using spurious (to you and I) evidence and reasoning. They present evidence and reasoning nonetheless for us to reject.(May 8, 2011 at 10:07 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You can't deny what I believe because you don't understand it.Firstly, it is not true that you need understand something to deny it. YECs deny evolution and yet they do not understand it beyond their dogmatic characterizations.
To us, they don't understand it correctly, but we would be disingenuous to suggest that their position was without reason presented. If Nap is denying something without reason then we can suspect his claim of denial as baseless and therefore not denial surely.
(May 8, 2011 at 10:22 am)theVOID Wrote: Secondly, Why not tell him in your own words what god is before you claim that he does not understand?I've tried to explain to him the reason against every objection he has raised so far. If he wants me to explain to him what God is then I would gladly oblige. Point is... he must understand what he denies, or how could he deny it? It's his positive claim and not mine to defend.
