Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[John V]

If you're reading it literally, then:

A. There was already light before the sun, so no problem with photosynthesis.

B. The sun came a day after the plants. Plants don't die from one day without light.

So again...what's the problem?

The problem is that now you're stuck ascribing to literal 24-hour day creation, else your second point makes no sense. That form of literalist creationism is demonstrably wrong in every sense we have ever tested.

You've swapped a small problem for a bigger one, and yet you're still wondering where the issue is?

So you agree that I've refuted the small problem, which is all that I was discussing - great! 

[Esquilax]

The problem is that now you're stuck ascribing to literal 24-hour day creation, else your second point makes no sense. That form of literalist creationism is demonstrably wrong in every sense we have ever tested.

You've swapped a small problem for a bigger one, and yet you're still wondering where the issue is?

So you agree that I've refuted the small problem, which is all that I was discussing - great! 

Oh, you haven't, for the reasons others have said, and if you actually think that destroying the entire foundation the position is built on counts as "refuting" one of the aspects of the argument that relies on the foundation then you're probably too far gone for a real discussion, but thank you for showing us that your real goal wasn't to be truthful, but to shut down conversation so you can be right.

"I've scuttled the entirety of the position, therefore this one aspect of it is safe!" is not a valid conclusion. There is no scorched earth victory in debate. Also, I said you've swapped out one problem for another, not that you've resolved the first problem. God, your desperation to leap to "I'm right!" is just sad.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Photosynthesis maybe?

If you're reading it literally, then:

A. There was already light before the sun, so no problem with photosynthesis.

From where?

B. The sun came a day after the plants. Plants don't die from one day without light.

So again...what's the problem?

Well, if you believe in Genesis literally, I'd say you've got an entire neighborhood of problems ... talking snakes, magic fruits, two different creation stories with different orderings ...

Where would you like to start, BooBoo?

[Ravenshire]

If you're reading it literally, then:

A. There was already light before the sun, so no problem with photosynthesis.

B. The sun came a day after the plants. Plants don't die from one day without light.

So again...what's the problem?

Because in order for god to create the plants he first had to create an Earth. If he created the Earth before he created the sun, around what did the Earth orbit?  In fact the Bible doesn't have anything orbiting anything. God places the sun and the moon right here in the Earth's atmosphere, under the firmament.

But the earth was the center of the universe back then. Gawd didn't change that until we figured out how to grind lenses and put them to use examining it's glorious creation. Duh!

[John V]

So you agree that I've refuted the small problem, which is all that I was discussing - great! 

Oh, you haven't, for the reasons others have said, and if you actually think that destroying the entire foundation the position is built on counts as "refuting" one of the aspects of the argument that relies on the foundation then you're probably too far gone for a real discussion, but thank you for showing us that your real goal wasn't to be truthful, but to shut down conversation so you can be right.

"I've scuttled the entirety of the position, therefore this one aspect of it is safe!" is not a valid conclusion. There is no scorched earth victory in debate. Also, I said you've swapped out one problem for another, not that you've resolved the first problem. God, your desperation to leap to "I'm right!" is just sad.  

What's sad is your need to jump in when I've refuted a very specific argument, then rather than address that argument, widen the scope so that you appear to have victory. 

[John V]

From where?

We're not told the source, but we're definitely told there's light in v3, and the plants don't come until v11.

Well, if you believe in Genesis literally, I'd say you've got an entire neighborhood of problems ... talking snakes, magic fruits, two different creation stories with different orderings ...

Where would you like to start, BooBoo?

Yes, I'm sure I do, but I addressed a very specific charge which is meritless. If you don't like it, teach your fellows not to make that charge.

[Esquilax]

What's sad is your need to jump in when I've refuted a very specific argument, then rather than address that argument, widen the scope so that you appear to have victory. 

You didn't refute shit, that's the issue. What you said literally cannot be true given what is common knowledge about the solar system, gravity, and the process of planetary formation. What kind of world do you live on, where a demonstrably false argument, at every resolution of its claims, is a "refutation"?

[John V]

You didn't refute shit, that's the issue. What you said literally cannot be true given what is common knowledge about the solar system, gravity, and the process of planetary formation. What kind of world do you live on, where a demonstrably false argument, at every resolution of its claims, is a "refutation"?

What I said was:

A. Plants can perform photosynthesis with light from a source other than the sun, and

B. Plants can live for a day without light.

These are demonstrably true. The rest is your attempt to extrapolate into a red herring.

[Rhondazvous]

The problem is that now you're stuck ascribing to literal 24-hour day creation, else your second point makes no sense. That form of literalist creationism is demonstrably wrong in every sense we have ever tested.

You've swapped a small problem for a bigger one, and yet you're still wondering where the issue is?

So you agree that I've refuted the small problem, which is all that I was discussing - great! 

No, dummy. You simply refused to deal honestly with it. I guess even you are smart enough to know when you can't deal with something, though you'll never admit it to us.

[Rhondazvous]

So you agree that I've refuted the small problem, which is all that I was discussing - great! 

Oh, you haven't, for the reasons others have said, and if you actually think that destroying the entire foundation the position is built on counts as "refuting" one of the aspects of the argument that relies on the foundation then you're probably too far gone for a real discussion, but thank you for showing us that your real goal wasn't to be truthful, but to shut down conversation so you can be right.

"I've scuttled the entirety of the position, therefore this one aspect of it is safe!" is not a valid conclusion. There is no scorched earth victory in debate. Also, I said you've swapped out one problem for another, not that you've resolved the first problem. God, your desperation to leap to "I'm right!" is just sad.  

He has mistaken the word "swapped" for the word "refuted." In what dictionary are these words even tangentially related?

I think you're right Esquilox. His raison detre is disruption. He's not even trying to offer even a respectably dishonest argument.