Your intellectual dishonesty is showing yet again. You have a poor memory as to what claims you have made.
So you have conceded the point that a powerful God could have created the Universe. What you're denying is that that God was my God, and you stated the reasons you don't believe it is my God, which were that evolution is true, the Universe is very old, and the flood didn't happen. These are your definitive claims, and you demanded evidence to the contrary:
So I've started to present this evidence and not only do you dismiss it all out of hand on false pretenses, but you actually state that presenting such evidence doesn't prove anything. Even though you had just asked me to present such evidence. Your arguments and rationale have become increasingly schitzophrenic, and it's become clear you have no actual standard for evidence except this: that it already agrees with your conclusions.
Quote:"Let me be clear here. I do not, and cannot argue against a deist's god. Even a god who, from deep antiquity, engaged in a single creative motion that inevitably led to everything that we see around us. This is a powerful god."
So you have conceded the point that a powerful God could have created the Universe. What you're denying is that that God was my God, and you stated the reasons you don't believe it is my God, which were that evolution is true, the Universe is very old, and the flood didn't happen. These are your definitive claims, and you demanded evidence to the contrary:
Quote:"There is no amount of "interpretation" that will change this. Unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise. That's what you need, because that's what you're dealing with here. Not some vague argument of questionable composition or terms. Cold, hard, physical evidence"
So I've started to present this evidence and not only do you dismiss it all out of hand on false pretenses, but you actually state that presenting such evidence doesn't prove anything. Even though you had just asked me to present such evidence. Your arguments and rationale have become increasingly schitzophrenic, and it's become clear you have no actual standard for evidence except this: that it already agrees with your conclusions.
(September 29, 2011 at 9:13 am)Rhythm Wrote: .

