Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:you cant see your problems! He sees that he has no problems! Pro-evolution websites cannot be trusted... but pro christ websites can be!
Genetic fallacy spotted!
Anyway, the issue is NOT about trusting websites, but why Aneslayer uses evolution websites to support his arguments when he says he does not believe in evolution. Don't anyhow chup into the debate when you not sure what we are talking about can?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Genetic fallacy spotted!
Anyway, the issue is NOT about trusting websites, but why Aneslayer uses evolution websites to support his arguments when he says he does not believe in evolution. Don't anyhow chup into the debate when you not sure what we are talking about can?
LOL :) yea fallacy! We all commit fallcy, we all are confused, we all are ignorant! We dunno anything!!
He meant no compulsion to read Genesis literally... So you are saying God made the serpent, the devil made it wiser by communicating with it implying God did not make the serpent wise... All wisdom comes from God, BIC. How can you give credit to the devil.... So I failed to make you argue logically taking Genesis literally... selective reading I reckon....
What evidence? All I see is exegrete....
Literal days of course. Not the man made 24hrs/day. Clear enough? I'm patient enough to repeat until the message gets through. So if 2 / 3 people believe the same, automatically makes you right? Right.../sarcasm.
Those arguments were solid. Its a shame that people like your good self can't see evolution as an observation other than a theory that conflicts God's creation... You mentioned cosmic --> chemical--> biological goo as evolution... LOL. Yup I don't believe in that evolution.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
LOL... general fact source proving :)Evidence found in pro evolution website can be used to prove/sustantiate against evolution is more convincing than pro christ websites to support pro christ.
But is ok.. you are always right :)
What is general fact source proving? I don't understand this phrase. Anyway it doesn't sound important so nevermind.
Disregarding your typo, claiming that pro-evolution websites are more convincing is a subjective claim. You are entitled to that opinion which I certainly disagree with. In any case, the evidence can be interpreted in either a pro-evolution or pro-creation way. However, I would argue that interpreting the evidence in a pro-creation way makes better sense of the evidence compared to evolution.
if we really want to interpret the source, preferable get a neutral party aka buddhist taoist or someone from another religion because they fall outside of a atheist and a christian.
A women is inclined to a women's perspective and a men is inclined to a men's perspective. A source given, atheist innately looks for all pro evolution evidence. A creationist innately looks for all pro creation evidence or anything to disprove evolution. Either way, both side cannot provide the best of interpretations.
Disclaimer: I'm not pro evolution. I'm pro creation.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:Disclaimer: I'm not pro evolution. I'm pro creation.
BIC seems to think that you are pro evolution.. LOL
Originally posted by Aneslayer:He meant no compulsion to read Genesis literally... So you are saying God made the serpent, the devil made it wiser by communicating with it implying God did not make the serpent wise... All wisdom comes from God, BIC. How can you give credit to the devil.... So I failed to make you argue logically taking Genesis literally... selective reading I reckon....
What evidence? All I see is exegrete....
Literal days of course. Not the man made 24hrs/day. Clear enough? I'm patient enough to repeat until the message gets through. So if 2 / 3 people believe the same, automatically makes you right? Right.../sarcasm.
Those arguments were solid. Its a shame that people like your good self can't see evolution as an observation other than a theory that conflicts God's creation... You mentioned cosmic --> chemical--> biological goo as evolution... LOL. Yup I don't believe in that evolution.
Your view on Augustine is overly simplistic. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/examining-augustine-genesis-commentaries and http://creation.com/augustine-young-earth-creationist
All you see is "exegrete" is because that's all you know. Duh...
So how is a man made 24 hours day DIFFERENT from the literal day in Genesis 1?
So you say those pro-evoution arguments (that would argue for cosmic, chemical, and biological evolution) were solid, and evolution does not conflict with God's creation, and yet you deny being an evolutionist? You must be one confused bloke!
BTW, how has evolution been observed?
there... BIC really thinks you are pro evolution
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:if we really want to interpret the source, preferable get a neutral party aka buddhist taoist or someone from another religion because they fall outside of a atheist and a christian.
A women is inclined to a women's perspective and a men is inclined to a men's perspective. A source given, atheist innately looks for all pro evolution evidence. A creationist innately looks for all pro creation evidence or anything to disprove evolution. Either way, both side cannot provide the best of interpretations.
There is no such thing as a neutral party. Such an entity is a myth and figment of imagination. See http://creation.com/myth-of-neutrality
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:there... BIC really thinks you are pro evolution
How on earth can anyone who rejects six day young earth creation using pro-evolution website arguments be not deemed to be pro-evolution? How does that work? And why would it be unreasonable for me to conclude so?
Ask him how old the earth is. Saying "I don't know" is a cop-out. Either the earth is about 6000 years as the Bible teaches or it is 4.5 billion years as currently believed. If there is a middle age view held, then he had better be giving some evidence for tha.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:There is no such thing as a neutral party. Such an entity is a myth and figment of imagination. See http://creation.com/myth-of-neutrality
do you only and only get evidences from creation.com?
you sure buddhist taoist muslim hindus tibetians anglicans catholics and all known religions believe in the same way a christian interprets the creation of earth?
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
do you only and only get evidences from creation.com?
you sure buddhist taoist muslim hindus tibetians anglicans catholics and all known religions believe in the same way a christian interprets the creation of earth?
Go through all my postings where I have links inserted and see for yourself whether I ONLY get evidences from creation.com.
BTW, even if I do, what's the problem? Creation.com is staffed by numerous scientists and Christians and also host many articles written by other believers who are not employees. It is not as if Creation.com is a one-man-organisation. Beware the genetic fallacy.
I would NOT expect a non-Christian to hold to a young earth view in today's world. But prior to Darwin, that would have been pretty much how it was, at least in the Western world.
You did not read the part where "...Augustine does not claim infallibility for his own interpretation.8 Instead, nearly the opposite is true..."... don't you find it embarrassing?
You have not provided any evidence...
You are shifting the burden of proof. Prove that "an evening and a morning makes a day" when God spoke of it is 24hrs. It helps if you find out on your own how this 24hrs is derived and when.
By describing evolution as cosmic and chemical is really making me just laugh at you... I seemed confusing to you because I'm beyond your stereotypes. Evolution does not conflict with God's creation. Deal with it.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:How on earth can anyone who rejects six day young earth creation using pro-evolution website arguments be not deemed to be pro-evolution? How does that work? And why would it be unreasonable for me to conclude so?
Ask him how old the earth is. Saying "I don't know" is a cop-out. Either the earth is about 6000 years as the Bible teaches or it is 4.5 billion years as currently believed. If there is a middle age view held, then he had better be giving some evidence for tha.
False dichotomy all the way ftw! I'm really ignorant of how old. I never claimed I know. Not my calling...
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Go through all my postings where I have links inserted and see for yourself whether I ONLY get evidences from creation.com.
BTW, even if I do, what's the problem? Creation.com is staffed by numerous scientists and Christians and also host many articles written by other believers who are not employees. It is not as if Creation.com is a one-man-organisation. Beware the genetic fallacy.
I would NOT expect a non-Christian to hold to a young earth view in today's world. But prior to Darwin, that would have been pretty much how it was, at least in the Western world.
i see that majority of your links comes from creation.com where you take whatever thats there as absolute facts. Even though creation.com is not a one man organisation, it does not justify that whatever there is absolute truth.
Stuffed by numerous scientist and christians? or scientists who are christians?
If it is really a fact, sources outside of creation.com or any website that are not in any sense inclined to the christian faith should prove the same thing. For example if the earth is really 6000yrs old, sources outside of creation.com that has not the tiniest bit of inclination to the christian faith should say the same aint it?
But once again, i mus have committed fallacy, i must be confused, i must be ignorant since im a non believer and to you, an athiest.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:You did not read the part where "...Augustine does not claim infallibility for his own interpretation.8 Instead, nearly the opposite is true..."... don't you find it embarrassing?
You have not provided any evidence...
You are shifting the burden of proof. Prove that "an evening and a morning makes a day" when God spoke of it is 24hrs. It helps if you find out on your own how this 24hrs is derived and when.
By describing evolution as cosmic and chemical is really making me just laugh at you... I seemed confusing to you because I'm beyond your stereotypes. Evolution does not conflict with God's creation. Deal with it.
Did I even say anything about Augustine being infallible? Irrelevant point again. Don't you find it embarrassing that I have to keep pointed out your irrelevant things you bring up?
Evidence I have provided. Question is, have you?
Still playing evasive. Just tell us how long a day is in Genesis 1, in clear language. Assume for the sake of argument that I am wrong lah. You say you believe in six days creation. You claim that each day is a literal day. So tell me how long each day is. Simple as that, why must weasel about here and there?
Laughing and scoffing only tells me what kind of person you are, not a refutation of my views. Your ignorance that evolution is applied to other areas is not my problem. You seem confused because you really are, and you don't even know it. That's how confused you are.
How does evolution (which you reject) not conflict with God's evolution? BTW, it would be helpful (to me, probably not to you) if you can tell me what you mean by evolution, in clear unambiguous language please.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
False dichotomy all the way ftw! I'm really ignorant of how old. I never claimed I know. Not my calling...
Why would that be a false dichotomy? Demonstrate the fallacy, if you can.
As expected, a cop out answer. Don't claim anything. Say you believe in Biblical creation, but refuse to say what that entails. So no need to defend anything. Cop out is cop out. Lame is lame. Can't even say (lack intellectual honesty and integrity?) which group you are in, YEC or OEC. If you can make the case for an MEC, maybe you still can fault me for false dichotomy. But I don't think I will be holding my breath for this.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
i see that majority of your links comes from creation.com where you take whatever thats there as absolute facts. Even though creation.com is not a one man organisation, it does not justify that whatever there is absolute truth.Stuffed by numerous scientist and christians? or scientists who are christians?
If it is really a fact, sources outside of creation.com or any website that are not in any sense inclined to the christian faith should prove the same thing. For example if the earth is really 6000yrs old, sources outside of creation.com that has not the tiniest bit of inclination to the christian faith should say the same aint it?
But once again, i mus have committed fallacy, i must be confused, i must be ignorant since im a non believer and to you, an athiest.
Did I or Creation.com even hint that what's there is entirely absolute truth? No, there is always a place for error when it comes to scientific models and interpretations.
Staffed by scientists who are Christians and Christians who are not scientists. Not everyone on staff need to be a scientist. You have IT people working on website and finance people and administrative people who do not need a science PhD.
I have mentioned before that the evidence is the SAME for both sides, that the evidence DO NOT SPEAK for itself but that it all boils down to one of INTERPRETATION. There a LOTS of evidence which do not fit with evolution under its own intepretation but better with creation. Living fossils are one big problem. So are polystrate fossils.
Wrong, just because you are an atheist or nonbeliever does not mean you are confused, ignorant, or reasoning poorly. It depends on what is the issue being discussed.
Well... you quoted Augustine to better your argument, not me. Too bad, not relevant, my point still stand. The literal serpent in Gen is not the dragon in Rev. So clear in the bible yet can say until got dragon got lion....
That's what you liked to believe... What evidence did I need else than the word of God?
I am laughing at your ignorance citing cosmic and chemical evolution. There is no such thing... only in your imagination.
Word of God not enough for you? An evening and a morning makes a day. What else are you looking for?
... Take a step to find out what the theory of evolution is about... by yourself. Its only good this way.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:Well... you quoted Augustine to better your argument, not me. Too bad, not relevant, my point still stand. The literal serpent in Gen is not the dragon in Rev. So clear in the bible yet can say until got dragon got lion....
That's what you liked to believe... What evidence did I need else than the word of God?
I am laughing at your ignorance citing cosmic and chemical evolution. There is no such thing... only in your imagination.
Word of God not enough for you? An evening and a morning makes a day. What else are you looking for?
... Take a step to find out what the theory of evolution is about... by yourself. Its only good this way.
LOL, now you distance yourself from Augustine after you realised that he isn't going to be of much use to you.
How does your point stand when you refused to make any stand? So to who does Rev refer to? What is the significance of the phrase "the ancient serpent, who is the devil and satan" (NET Bible)?
Go google on cosmic evolution and chemical evolution. It's only good this way. I am having the last laugh.
I know an evening and a morning means a day. I take it to mean 24 hours. You say I am wrong. Fine, ignore what I say and just assume I am wrong. So what do YOU say? How long is a day? Man-made or not, just tell us how long it is in terms of hours, or any time measurement you prefer since you so scared to commit. Duh.
I see a red herring. Asking me to find out what the ToE is about is not the same as you telling me what you believe about it and why it does not conflict with the Bible.
I love his works. Kinda mad that you used him for leverage in argument and then discard it as irrelevant when it is used back against you... You mad?
Its in the sentence... Its the devil and the Satan... How does it relate to the literal serpent in Gen?
Really? Humor me, what is cosmic evolution? What is chemical evolution?
Measurements of time? How does one measure time? What is a hour, min, second?
It doesn't conflict at all. The theory of evolution is what you called biology evolution. How does it conflict God's creation?
Originally posted by Aneslayer:I love his works. Kinda mad that you used him for leverage in argument and then discard it as irrelevant when it is used back against you... You mad?
Its in the sentence... Its the devil and the Satan... How does it relate to the literal serpent in Gen?
Really? Humor me, what is cosmic evolution? What is chemical evolution?
Measurements of time? How does one measure time? What is a hour, min, second?
It doesn't conflict at all. The theory of evolution is what you called biology evolution. How does it conflict God's creation?
Teh gong and evasive tactics again, ftw!
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Did I or Creation.com even hint that what's there is entirely absolute truth? No, there is always a place for error when it comes to scientific models and interpretations.
Staffed by scientists who are Christians and Christians who are not scientists. Not everyone on staff need to be a scientist. You have IT people working on website and finance people and administrative people who do not need a science PhD.
I have mentioned before that the evidence is the SAME for both sides, that the evidence DO NOT SPEAK for itself but that it all boils down to one of INTERPRETATION. There a LOTS of evidence which do not fit with evolution under its own intepretation but better with creation. Living fossils are one big problem. So are polystrate fossils.
Wrong, just because you are an atheist or nonbeliever does not mean you are confused, ignorant, or reasoning poorly. It depends on what is the issue being discussed.
Staffed by scientists who are Christians and Christians who are not scientists. Ultimately all christians writing about christian?
Its only those that appeal to authority that would use Augustine to attempt to add weight to their arguments. Despicable!
No relation?
Those three are different fields of science and you lump in together under evolution... Shamelessly covering your ignorance .
I'm convinced that you cannot define time.
Your burden of proof.
Define teh gong. I find you hypocritical in more ways than I thought.