(September 15, 2011 at 3:44 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Might want to reread my posts Stat. Not that you would stop being a dick either way. I read the man's accomplishments. Unfortunately for him any academic integrity he could have had was washed away by being an apologist. Of course, I shouldn't be too harsh, he died in '39, wasn't working with a full kit was he.
So, execution for heresy, yay or nay?
All name calling aside, his work was done while he was an atheist, his findings made him an apologist. I like your fallacious appeal to novelty here, archeology does not necessarily get better through the decades, especially considering you are moving away from the source in time.
So were you lying when you said Calvin executed people or just ignorant of the facts? You never answered my question about why it is wrong to lie either, I am thinking it’s because you don’t know.
(September 15, 2011 at 3:57 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I'm a patient man but I'm not going to explain to you why the burden of proof is on you to show that miracles happen.
According to you the burden of proof is actually on you that they cannot happen since “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Quote:Actually, I wear it on my sleeve so there's nothing to seep through. But thank you anyway.
You do realize that naturalism is a self refuting worldview though don’t you?
Quote: Is this unabashed special pleading or is there a good reason Christian claims of miracles are held to a different standard?
No special pleading, I assure you. The reason for my rejection of those other books is because they are in direct contradiction to God’s revealed truth, not because of any perceived “lack of evidence”.
Quote:No, just commenting that IF scholarship accepts Luke as a "historian", then we don't live in a rational society. I repeat my statement that anyone who seriously suggest that mythology should be taken as serious history should simply be laughed out of the room.
Believing that laughing someone out of a room proves anything is in itself irrational. Committing a question begging epithet by referring to scripture as “mythology” is also irrational. Saying you don’t accept Luke as historical because scholars do not but then saying that even if scholars did they would be irrational is circular and therefore irrational. I am starting to think you’d be the one “laughed out of” any room full of rational people.
Quote:
There are no biologists alive today who don't accept evolution.
You didn’t provide me with quotes from the majority of biologists alive today saying they accepted Darwinian Evolution!!! Oh no!!
P.S. Jonathan Wells is a Biologist and he does not accept Darwinian Evolution, so that was easy enough to refute. Actually the fish biologist I work with at the USDA does not accept Darwinian Evolution either, so that was easy enough to refute a second time.
Quote:Please point out where in that passage it says what you claim it says in bold above.
You are the one asserting this passage contains a contradiction, I gave you a scenario that harmonizes all the gospel accounts (something that would be impossible to do if they really did contradict one another), so it is now up to you to demonstrate something in my scenario is in disagreement with any one of the gospels.
“ 1 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. “
The women come to see the grave.
“2 And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. 3 “
It says the earthquake had occurred, it does not say it occurred after the women arrived at the grave, it could have occurred several hours earlier or even a few minutes before the women arrived.
“ The angel said to the women, “[a]Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. 6 He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said.”
Since the angel spoke to the women, it appears he was still sitting on the stone when the women arrived.
