RE: Argument #1: Transitional Fossils
April 26, 2014 at 5:27 pm
(This post was last modified: April 26, 2014 at 5:29 pm by Revelation777.)
(April 24, 2014 at 3:26 am)DarkHorse Wrote:(April 24, 2014 at 12:17 am)Esquilax Wrote: They're upfront about their intentions, it's just that those intentions represent an inexcusable bias that prevents anything they present from being at all truthful where it disagrees with the position they've taken before examining the evidence.
Put it this way: if I told you that I was beginning from the position that the bible is always wrong, and that's how I interpret the evidence, would you take anything I said seriously? If the answer is no, why would you expect us to do otherwise?
As for holes in the science... what would you think if I told you that all of the holes that AiG claims exist have been answered and refuted by science for years, and yet they're still up there on the AiG website? Because, you know, you can find out whether or not that claim I just made is true: you've just got to look at proper, mainstream science sources.
We can point you to some, if you like. You've just got to take that first step to see if how AiG is representing science matches with the actual discoveries. Are you willing to do that, and hence be truthful in your investigation?
Rev, pay careful attention to what Esquilax wrote above. You seem to miss all the important stuff, or you choose to ignore it, whatever.
There are more holes in your beliefs than any thing else on this planet.
I read what he wrote. I respect the man but that doesn't mean I agree with him. I think he would of taken me up on my movie ticket offer if he lived her in the USA.
(April 24, 2014 at 3:26 am)DarkHorse Wrote:(April 24, 2014 at 12:17 am)Esquilax Wrote: They're upfront about their intentions, it's just that those intentions represent an inexcusable bias that prevents anything they present from being at all truthful where it disagrees with the position they've taken before examining the evidence.
Put it this way: if I told you that I was beginning from the position that the bible is always wrong, and that's how I interpret the evidence, would you take anything I said seriously? If the answer is no, why would you expect us to do otherwise?
As for holes in the science... what would you think if I told you that all of the holes that AiG claims exist have been answered and refuted by science for years, and yet they're still up there on the AiG website? Because, you know, you can find out whether or not that claim I just made is true: you've just got to look at proper, mainstream science sources.
We can point you to some, if you like. You've just got to take that first step to see if how AiG is representing science matches with the actual discoveries. Are you willing to do that, and hence be truthful in your investigation?
Rev, pay careful attention to what Esquilax wrote above. You seem to miss all the important stuff, or you choose to ignore it, whatever.
There are more holes in your beliefs than any thing else on this planet.
I also think Esquilax would become a great Biblical apologist if he becomes a believer someday. Him and Ken Ham probably would be friends and share the same accent.
(April 24, 2014 at 3:26 am)DarkHorse Wrote:(April 24, 2014 at 12:17 am)Esquilax Wrote: They're upfront about their intentions, it's just that those intentions represent an inexcusable bias that prevents anything they present from being at all truthful where it disagrees with the position they've taken before examining the evidence.
Put it this way: if I told you that I was beginning from the position that the bible is always wrong, and that's how I interpret the evidence, would you take anything I said seriously? If the answer is no, why would you expect us to do otherwise?
As for holes in the science... what would you think if I told you that all of the holes that AiG claims exist have been answered and refuted by science for years, and yet they're still up there on the AiG website? Because, you know, you can find out whether or not that claim I just made is true: you've just got to look at proper, mainstream science sources.
We can point you to some, if you like. You've just got to take that first step to see if how AiG is representing science matches with the actual discoveries. Are you willing to do that, and hence be truthful in your investigation?
Rev, pay careful attention to what Esquilax wrote above. You seem to miss all the important stuff, or you choose to ignore it, whatever.
There are more holes in your beliefs than any thing else on this planet.
Not nearly as much holes as Darwinism.