Dinosaurs Weren't in the Bible...They Never Even Existed.

[tuxcomputers]

... and the provision of that proof is where?????

The impossibility of the contrary, without God you wouldn’t even be able to argue against His existence because the very concept of proof quietly assumes that God exists.

...ssssoooo.... you have the same amount of evidence for god as for leprechauns, big foot, aliens, the rainbow serpent, Zeus, zero point energy and an expanding earth, none.

.. blah blah blah... lies lies lies...

This would be Statlers technique as a criminal defense lawyer:

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution will show you

1. fingerprints from the crime scene that matches my client's fingerprints
   
2. DNA of semen on the victim that matches my client
   
3. a knife with the victims blood on it that they found in my clients possession
   
4. clothes my client was wearing that has the victims blood on it
   
5. DNA results that match blood to the victim
   
6. autopsy reports that show the victim was strangled
   
7. a rope with DNA on it from the victim found in my clients possession
   
8. a chainsaw that has the victims blood on it that was owned by my client
   
9. a string of witnesses that will testify of a long running dispute between the victim and my client
   

..but, what you have to remember nobody saw my client sexually assault, strangle, stab then dismember the victim so it's all just a story, the defense rests.

[Statler Waldorf]

Ah, no.

But assumption is your best friend, because reason is not.

Then why would you ask such a stupid question?

Exhibit A : A fossilised dinosaur skeleton. (I can't be arsed to post the image, you've seen it) This IS conclusive proof that such a creature existed. No other evidence is required.

That’s not even a logical syllogism much less a sound one, where is your premise, conclusion, antecedent, and consequent? Care to take another swing?

SCIENCE

Put the fairy tales down and read some real science.

Unjustified interference from an intelligent investigator doesn’t prove abiogenesis is even possible much less ever happened. Try again.

Me: So you agree that you are an ass. Congratulations.

Nope, I agree that I was acting like an atheist which would make my arguments absurd and my behavior like that of an ass.

Atheists don't argue against the existence of God. They argue against any emperic evidence for the existence of God.

…revisionists’ definition of atheism that does not harmonize with many of the best Encyclopedias of Philosophy.

2) There is emperic evidence that you exist.

No there isn’t, you have not directly observed me.

No, we are asking for an inductive argument concerning the existence of God. Got anything like that?

Absolutely! The Cosmological and Design arguments for the existence of God are both good inductive arguments. I’ll give you one…

P1 Information is always observed to originate from a mind
P2 DNA holds semantic information.
C Therefore DNA originated from a creator mind.

Hence we find that there are creationists who believe that the Flintstones is a documentary.

Name one who actually does….

...ssssoooo.... you have the same amount of evidence for god as for leprechauns, big foot, aliens, the rainbow serpent, Zeus, zero point energy and an expanding earth, none.

Nope, the very preconditions of intelligibility do not require that any of those other things exist, they do require that God exists, so false analogy.

.. blah blah blah... lies lies lies...

Abusing the quote function is against the forum rules.

This would be Statlers technique as a criminal defense lawyer:

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution will show you
..but, what you have to remember nobody saw my client sexually assault, strangle, stab then dismember the victim so it's all just a story, the defense rests.

Why would you falsely equate forensics with empirical science? I thought you said you knew a thing or two about how science works?

[Minimalist]

Lawyers are more like preachers, Waldork.

Truth is irrelevant when they are trying to con people.

No one knows that better than you.

[Statler Waldorf]

Lawyers are more like preachers, Waldork.

Truth is irrelevant when they are trying to con people.

No one knows that better than you.

Where have I lied about anything or even tried to con anyone? I am not asking for anything out of this in return, or for anyone to even agree with me. If you can’t hack the debate that’s one thing, but throwing out these false accusations crosses a greater line of impropriety.

[orogenicman]

That’s not even a logical syllogism much less a sound one, where is your premise, conclusion, antecedent, and consequent? Care to take another swing?

Irony: That a creationist would believe that the existence of dinosaur fossils depends on human logic.

Nope, I agree that I was acting like an atheist which would make my arguments absurd and my behavior like that of an ass.

You said we agree. Sorry Charlie. We don't.

…revisionists’ definition of atheism that does not harmonize with many of the best Encyclopedias of Philosophy.

Non-responsive misdirection.

No there isn’t, you have not directly observed me.

Your posts are direct evidence that you, whatever you may be, exist. Yeah, I know, it sucks, but it is what it is.

Absolutely! The Cosmological and Design arguments for the existence of God are both good inductive arguments. I’ll give you one…

P1 Information is always observed to originate from a mind
P2 DNA holds semantic information.
C Therefore DNA originated from a creator mind.

Any argument for the existence of god is, by definition, based on personal revelation. As such, it is subjective, not objective, and based on deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning. Secondly. your first premise is based on the unsupported assumption that all information originates from a mind. Since there is no emperic evidence to support this assumption, your entire argument collapses.

Name one who actually does….

Oh, that's an easy one:

---

Lawyers are more like preachers, Waldork.

Truth is irrelevant when they are trying to con people.

No one knows that better than you.

Where have I lied about anything or even tried to con anyone? I am not asking for anything out of this in return, or for anyone to even agree with me. If you can’t hack the debate that’s one thing, but throwing out these false accusations crosses a greater line of impropriety.

Nearly everything you've posted is a bag of lies. Do you honestly think we need to provide you with a list?

[Statler Waldorf]

Irony: That a creationist would believe that the existence of dinosaur fossils depends on human logic.

It doesn’t, but knowing whether they existed or not which is what we are talking about depends on logic.

You said we agree. Sorry Charlie. We don't.

Agree on what?

Non-responsive misdirection.

Ok, I will say it simpler. You screwed up the definition of atheism.

Your posts are direct evidence that you, whatever you may be, exist. Yeah, I know, it sucks, but it is what it is.

No they are not, empirical science is based on direct observation and repeatability, you only have direct observation that my posts exist, not that I exist.

Any argument for the existence of god is, by definition, based on personal revelation. As such, it is subjective, not objective, and based on deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning.

Wrong, I reasoned from the particular to the general which is what inductive reasoning is.

Secondly. your first premise is based on the unsupported assumption that all information originates from a mind. Since there is no emperic evidence to support this assumption, your entire argument collapses.

Wrong again, it’s not an assumption, it’s a rule based upon all observed cases. Information has always been observed to arise from a mind, books, music, and codes. If you have an observed case where information arose devoid of an intelligent mind please present it or the premise stands.

---

Oh, that's an easy one:

---

I don’t even know who that is a picture of, I said name one.

Nearly everything you've posted is a bag of lies. Do you honestly think we need to provide you with a list?

Yes or else you are bearing false testimony which is a form of lying. So you have to prove…

1. My statements are false
2. I knew my statements were false at the time I made them

Good luck with that one.

[IATIA]

No they are not, empirical science is based on direct observation and repeatability, you only have direct observation that my posts exist, not that I exist.

One of your few good answers. I cannot, in good conscience, give your last post Kudos, but Kudos to this response.

Now, can you apply this to your refutations?

[Epimethean]

Stat, I asked the question because you do not appear to be a scientist in any way. Perhaps you do work with the USDA, but from the way you abuse science and misuse the scientific method, logic in general, and substitute faith-based, scriptural arguments for science, I have to tell you, my "belief" is that you are perhaps a bean counter, a secretary, or perhaps a courier. That was what I was playing on. I didn't expect you to get that, because, quite frankly, you have been faced with many facts, a great deal of science, and a vast amount of legitimate criticism of your lack of evidence, poor single primary (if it can be called such) source, and constantly tautological goddiditthebiblesaysso shtick, and you haven't seemed to get that, either.

You don't debate. You masturbate.

[Norfolk And Chance]

That’s not even a logical syllogism much less a sound one, where is your premise, conclusion, antecedent, and consequent? Care to take another swing?

No, I'll just hit you with the same one, because I don't need to take another one. Dinosaur skeletons are, you know, the skeletons of creatures that we decided to call dinosaurs. No logic required in this instance, no waffle needed.

[Epimethean]

LOOKATTHEPRETTYROCKFORMATIONS!!!!