Creation/evolution3

[Norman Humann]

OK.

First off, I understand not wanting to call anyone out, but by doing that you just repeated your assertion that no one is addressing your points without providing evidence.

Post 445 is another example of me knocking down a strawman. line by line. This thread is full of these examples.

You just repeated that we are using the strawman fallacy without pointing out where it was used.

Because in 2/3's of my posts i spend the majority of my time addressing strawmen and their specifics. I did not know I needed to point them out to you.

Second, I don't see how anyone here is intellectually lazy, since most of us are actually trying to understand your points and make our own.

This is not true. Post 445 is a great example of my answer to an atheist changing what I said to make his points valid.

(We would be intellectually lazy if we just took everything we heard for granted, in which case we would not be having this discussion.

Yes that is indeed one form of intelectual laziness. another is not addressing the points of a topic because one does not have an answer to give on the specifics of a given topic, but rather change the topic just enough to make old arguements work, or they introduce a red herring to change the topic. (much like your efforts have been centered around)

Post 445:

---

I can provide an adequate synopsis of your position, if you need one Drich.

On the issue of monkey men with souls, genesis, and evolution, you've offered the extrabiblical claim that you can squeeze all of -whatever- into the time between the end of creation and the fall.

Again your mixing two things. the first is theexegetical statement that their is no time line between the last day of creation and the fall of man. Without a doubt in any bible there is no date. This has been proven several different times to you.

Second thing. Man, a Man, Adam was different than ALL Other creatures in that God breathed into Him a Living soul. This was unique to Adam and his children and their children.

IF
It is your belief that man existed outside of the garden the bible does not deny you this belief. In fact it supports it as it speaks of cities and of people not listed in the garden account. However as per genesis 2 these 'men did not have souls as ADAM was the only one who did.

So to recap: Monkey men/Evolved man/ Man who lived out side the garden did not have a soul. Adam did per The Creation account.

-You actually can't, I've demonstrated why, and offered you a means of demonstrating or falsifying your own claim by biblical reference.

No I have several times, you just keep asking the same questions over pertending I did not say what I did.

You ran off to some bullshit about exodus and dropped the monkey man song and dance.

We are discussing exodus because a question was ask. That's what I do here I answer questions.

You do not have question you make strawmen and want me to defend what you think I should say.

As regards exodus, you've given a contra-biblical, falsifiable, and..conveniently, falsified excuse as to why no evidence has been found rather than simply say "Bible says that nothing wore out because magic".

Nope try again sport. This is exactly what I mean by you creating strawmen. A link I posted showed the scripture that said their clothing did not wear out, everything being discussed clothing never came up. You all want to see camp fires, poop, bones, dead people, tents and pottery Again aside from the dead all of that would have been repurposed. The dead one dried out their bones would have been gathered and treked to the promise land like moses was!

-Unfortunately, you've been called out on that at length, but here were are, up to date.

Yes I've been called out many many times but each and every time the out callings have been shot down. How? Because they are almost always based on logical fallacy/false repersentation of my position.

What does it say about your arguement if you have to lie about what I've said for arguement to make sense?

You've clearly shown that you can support what you believe, but in doing so you've shown what you'll accept as support for what you believe.

Actually I can not support what you believe I believe. In the very beginning of your last post you wanted to provide a synopsis. YOU FAILED To do That! So then how can you tell me I can't support what I believe if you don't even have an elementry grasp of it?

That "support" is extra-biblical, contra-biblical, non-factual, logically invalid...and, frankly....ridiculous bullshit of the very lowest order even without mentioning any of the former. Allow me to suggest that if -this- is what satisfies you as far as support for a belief...then you require none at all -in actuality-. That it might be prudent, since each piece of "support" provides a means to demonstrably falsify your beliefs, that your beliefs would be better served if you stopped attempting to support them at all. Your "ministry" here is chipping away at what little credibility anyone might have afforded it even if only on the grounds of earnestness. You've convinced me, for example, that not only are your beliefs demonstrably and factually wrong...but that you don't actually believe them as you claim to, and that you certainly aren't interested in these beliefs you claim at all.... - and that takes quite a bit. Is that what you're shooting for, is this the goal? If not, you might want to rethink your method, eh?

these are the ranting of the self diluted.

Show me line by line proof. Show me the first place you had a proper understanding of what has been discussed and show me where you accuratly refuted what was said.

Each and every instance you change the subject of discussion just enough so your sweeping generalization seem to apply.

Take your sweeping generalizations off the table and what do you have left? Absolutly nothing. You want to be the heavy hitter here, but you will not put in the work or effort.

So me that I am wrong show me by truly restating me arguement. Show me your not the lazy pretender you seem to be and I will put in the time to straighten out what ever you like no matter how long it takes (lord willing I have the time.)

---

In which you do what you're doing now - claiming that we are using the strawman fallacy without pointing out how. Bolding mine.

Third, I see you're still holding a grudge for the spelling thing.

So?

You literally just took the first sentence of my point.

In that situation there is little to do but point out the spelling mistakes. It's not a personal attack, the mistakes make your posts less clear.

And being on the topic, you could at least admit to some of them, which you didn't.

You don't understand how this whole dsylexica thing works do you? My mind literally auto corrects, and I do not see it the mispellings unless a word is way off. Otherwise there is nothing to admit to, because there is nothing wrong that I can see. I would have to go letter by letter with the correct spelling along side to see and make those changes.

My dad is dyslexic, so I would say I have a pretty good understanding of "how this whole dsylexica thing works".

And, just like the spelling, your formatting is making your posts very hard to read. Please fix it.

out of 48 pages 3 maybe 4 indivisual posts had formatting issues.

To cite your own words, "so"?

Those who can do
Those who can't only teach
Those who can't teach grade papers. you are little more than a paper grader, as nothing we have discussed has had anything to do with what is topically being discussed.

I agree this has nothing to do with the topic. I don't see any point in wasting my time, since I know you will reply saying exactly the same things you have already said.

[Roxy904]

*Cough* Will I get a response beyond "what are you responding to?"

[Norman Humann]

*Cough* Will I get a response beyond "what are you responding to?"

Knowing Drich, he'll tell you to "wait your turn" and then repeat what he said earlier. So no, I wouldn't count on it if I were you.

[Drich]

Fuck you.
Sorry, just had to get that off my chest.

Anyway, to adress what you said, which didn't address my original point. Why do you continue to believe that this is factual, when there has been no empirical evidence to support it?

What makes you think I am not a member of the empire?
The Only way to say their is no Empirical Evidence for God is to change the meaning of the word 'Empirical.' Because as it stands with merrium Webster it simply points to any evidence/data based in observation OR Experience. As I have said many times I have experienced God.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical

I was also trying to point out that if you don't take the Bible literally, you can still be a faithful Catholic;

Yeah, not high on my list of priorities.

even my RELIGION teacher doesn't take the Bible literally.

Also not big on Religion. Maybe that is why. (one has to dilute the bible inorder for most religions to work)

My textbook on Christianity says you shouldn't take the Bible literally.

God tends to think differently.

And I don't know why you do, as it has no evidence to support wild and dubious claims.

In the bible there is a promise. If you do ABC God will Do XYZ I did the ABC and Got the XYZ. Therefore I found the evidence you did not to not only establish my belief but to maintain it come what may.

Seriously? Arguing with people is one thing, but calling them in intellectually lazy is another, especially when you continue to claim the Bible is 100% historically accurate.

I have done more than call people intelectually lazy I have gone point by point and shown them that they were. And I have spent 20+ years reading and studing the bible, and I can positivly say it is 100% of what we need to Find God.

You calling all (baseless accusation right there) atheists intellectually lazy bothers me greatly.

So? Their is a lot said on this website that bothers me greatly, but I'm still here and I do not complain to you nor anyone else about it do i? Matter of fact that is kinda the point we are here. To 'bother' each other greatlly. The only difference? I work at doing so with the truth and not just any sharp edge I can find (my dsylexia being an example of that.)

I was indoctrinated into the Catholic Church from when I was a baby upward.

Sorry

I have been at a Catholic school for the entirety of my education.

Again, sorry

I tried to believe, and read books and websites, and genuinely tried to believe, but reading different books and other sources of information led me to becoming an agnostic athiest.

Have you ever considered your current situation is an answer to your prayers?

You claim that I'm intellectually lazy, when I had to break free of an indoctrination, and when you can't even spell intellectually correctly,

yuup.
Why? look at the content of this post. Is it topical? or does it use just enough topic to veer off into a red herring?
Logical fallacies like red herrings are in of themselves not valid arguements or invalid reasoning. But to default to logical fallacy inlew of a topical discussion over and over again.. that is the laziness I am speaking of.

Also, Ender's Game is originally a book.

So? It is also a Harrison Ford movie is it not?

Ever hear of those? Also, are you trying to compare Ender to God?

No I am comparing the philosphy of breaking the will of an opponet to prevent them from comming back. Ender's Game The MOVIE was just a popculture reference that 'lazy people' might more easily relate to.

Ender is continually manipulated throughout the book, and has deep-set physiological problems, due to his sociopath brother, and unreasonable pressure put upon him, as a child, albeit an extremely intelligent one, commandeering an army.
I did read the OP, and that's part of the irony of you claiming that I am "big on baseless accusations."

Well if you did read the op and you in your post did not stick to the topic but rather used something I have said in this thread to take us off the OP's topic then you are guilty of a Red Herring. Now because I have been screaming at the constant use of logical fallacy by atheist to rail road this thread, (including the use of red herring) throughout this thread....

You guessed it! your active participation with your red herring post has made you one of the intelectually lazy Atheist I was speaking of. So like the term or not, it applies sport. If you really don't like it, and don't want me to identify you as intelectually lazy, you must change your ways... "Repent" if you will and turn from your misdeeds!

[downbeatplumb]

Drich is trying to cram his religion into the evidence rather than looking at the evidence and seeing what is most likely.
What he is doing is the opposite of science.

[watchamadoodle]

What would I do? Abort the baby. Save the mother. Repent. Move on.
That is what/Why Christ died on the cross. To free us from the law.
...
Most of you do not understand the fundementals of redemption and only see Sin and righteousness. Christ died to provide a third option and that is redemption.
...
One could argue it is indeed a book of law. a law we will all be judged by at some point.

O.k., I'm still trying to understand how you see this.

What do you see as God's law? Most of the Bible's laws are impossible to obey, because there is no Jewish temple. You aren't a Messianic Jew as far as I know. If we take Jesus' "love thy neighbor" as the guide, then how do we condemn homosexual sex? After all, homosexual sex is not hurting anybody, and it is actually an expression of love - just like heterosexual sex. The only justification for condemning homosexuality is some Bible verses. The Jews traditionally condemned homosexuality, but they also tried to follow all the dietary rules, etc.

It seems like your approach is:
- follow the Bible laws when it doesn't conflict with your own morals
- break the Bible laws and repent when morally necessary
- follow your own morals when no Bible law applies

Is that a good summary? Of course we also need to decide which Bible laws apply to Christians, so we know when to repent.

[Norman Humann]

Drich is trying to cram his religion into the evidence rather than looking at the evidence and seeing what is most likely.
What he is doing is the opposite of science.

And also a waste of time.

I regret taking him seriously in the first place.

[Drich]

Drich is trying to cram his religion into the evidence rather than looking at the evidence and seeing what is most likely.
What he is doing is the opposite of science.

Hydron collider heello...

'Science' built this 100 billon dollar/euro crap fest on the idea that the little collider they had was not 'big enough' to see the particals they wanted to see. So on the 'faith' they had in what they found, they set out to build a bigger/better version. So fast forward 10/15 years what do we have? essentially what we had before.
The same particals the same understanding (Same evidence as before) just somehow more resolve that their faith in what they believe is true.
(I say faith because this partical still has not been documented.)

So tell me some more about how science is different than religion.

[The Grand Nudger]

When you have to airquote the very thing you're attempting to establish, you ought to know you're taking liberties. No one would have given them the money on faith. Think like a big boy.

[Roxy904]

I don't care if you personally have experienced "God", because I haven't. Let's take gravity on Earth as an example; I experience gravity all the time. I can test it, e.g. dropping something or simply not floating off the ground; others can test gravity as well. Can you apply the same to God? No, not everyone experiences "God" and they can "experience" different ones.

And I (insincerely) apologize that I didn't specify that the people mentioned were Christian (as opposed to when I said Catholic). I often accidently substitute one for the other.

Who are you to claim you know what God tends to think?

After eventually deciphering your ungrammatical post, I claim to the conclusion that you were trying to tell me that I did not do "XYZ" and you did, and that's why you're still Christian and I'm not. That's why I didn't find evidence, apparently. It wasn't at *all* due to the fact that I actually questioned what people told me, and did my research. Once again, another baseless accusation. You are so full of hypocrisy, it's almost funny.

It may be that you personally find the Bible to be where you "Find God", but give me 5 minutes, and the Internet, and anyone can show you horrible parts of the Bible, which is filled with genocide, rape, oppression of minorities, etc.

A) I can't sincerely pray if I can't sincerely believe in what I'm praying to. B) Are you trying to reconvert me? Seriously?

Drich, do you even look at the content of your own posts? You describe your own posts while trying to call mine lazy. What you call red herrings is what others may call making a point.

I never said it wasn't a movie. (The book is better, though.) So, are you saying God uses the "philosophy of breaking the will of an opponent to prevent him from coming back"? What happened to free will?

When people address points you make, that's not a red herring. The points you made, that I addressed, were off the OP.

I'm not sure what you want me to repent from.

The simple fact is that your hypothesis is irrational, as it has no scientific evidence to prove it.