Not Darwin's Law, it's God's Law.

[M.D. Rawlings]

Even among the very worst of the charlatans and snake oil salesmen who define christian fundamentalists, William Lane Craig and John Lennox, both have long ago been discredited and dismissed as frauds.

Why dig up the bones of those fossil skeletons?

 

[Taz]

Do you believe in a worldwide flood? No? Then you don't believe the bible.

do you believe this statement to be true?.....if so, then you are irrational......

I was actually hoping to discuss the matter with someone who believes in the bible, not you.

No.

You want to debate with the straw men of prescientific hermeneutics, most of which are almost exclusively characteristic of Eighteenth-Century fundamentalism, as if these extra-biblical relics of hermeneutics were the essence of divine revelation in and of itself. You're not even aware of the fact that many biblical scholars both before and after Christ held that the days of creation were not necessarily literal, 24-hour days . . . centuries before the era of Bible-belt fundamentalism.

You want to debate with a literal, geographically worldwide flood rather than the dynamics of a deluge encompassing the geographic range of humanity of Noah's time as you ignore the fact that the archeological cannon universally testifies of such a cataclysmic event. You want to debate with young-earth creationists in spite of the fact the Bible doesn't tell us how old the Earth or the universe is. (Hey, know-nothing! Go debate these irrelevancies, including Usher's prescientific genealogy, with young-earth creationists.) You want to confound the ancients' prescientific understanding of geography, geology and cosmology as if the Bible were a detailed scientific treatise rather than what it actually is: a theological treatise addressed to prescientific man on his terms, within the range of his knowledge.

In short, you don't want to deal with learned Bible believers, just like the denizens of the new atheism have become increasingly gun shy of debating real theologians in the last few years after getting their butts handed to them time and time again.





Ultimately, you want to keep running away from the following arguments which none of you atheists can counter:

The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/.


Traditional Transcendental Argument for God's Existence (TAG): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248541/.


The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/.


The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/. ​

So you agree with me, the bible is crap. Thank you. That's all I was ever saying.

Your scholarship is crap. Your hermeneutics is crap. Your understanding is crap. Your attitude is crap.

The guy in the video said that the bible is the word of god. So either god doesn't know what he's talking about, or you don't, for posting someone would contradicts you (among other things). Hmmm. Tough decision? Umm... no.

Please try again.

 

[BreezeWood]

Even among the very worst of the charlatans and snake oil salesmen who define christian fundamentalists, William Lane Craig and John Lennox, both have long ago been discredited and dismissed as frauds.

Why dig up the bones of those fossil skeletons?

.

William Lane Craig and John Lennox ... " both have long ago been discredited and dismissed as frauds ".

mdr . -

.

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

( have long ago been discredited and dismissed as frauds ) - simply add mdr, postmodernproph et all bible thumpers to the list of "absolutist" (mindless) fools.

* for believing what they have been lead to read.

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Wow, the ignorance and hate expressed here just takes my breath away. Moreover:

"For example, there has never been any monolithic paradigm regarding the duration of the days of creation, the age of the Earth, the age of the universe. . ."

Erm,

1) Yes there was and still is;
2) Bishop Ussher;
3) Bishop Ussher, and many more.

Wow. Just wow. I mean, you know, like, shut up, you silly man. What we have here is some gibberish about ignorance and hate, reminiscent of the barking madness routinely spouted by Hollie, followed by some gibberish, presumably, about Ussher's age for the Earth. By the way, is that supposed to be a syllogism?

No, of course not, it's just a weirdly constructed line of . . . gibberish.

orogenicman: "Yes there was and still is" a monolithic paradigm, "Bishop Ussher", "Bishop Ussher, and many more."


That's monolithic as in uniformity.

Are you claiming that Ussher's age for the Earth, premised on a literal, 24-hour-day-creation scenario and biblical genealogy, is the historically monolithic view of Christendom before his time and since?

What are the two major presuppositions on which Ussher premised his age for the universe that have been falsified?

What were the views of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, Hilary and Philo?

Do you comprehend the distinction between hermeneutics and scripture?

As to my supposed ignorance, pay close attention to the date this article was posted on my blog: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2013/12/elementary-my-dear-watson-rebuttal-of_9.html

Read the article.

Stop writing in gibberish.

Answer the questions in the above . . . if you can.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

( have long ago been discredited and dismissed as frauds ) - simply add mdr, postmodernproph et all bible thumpers to the list of "absolutist" (mindless) fools.

* for believing what they have been lead to read.

.

 

[BreezeWood]

( have long ago been discredited and dismissed as frauds ) - simply add mdr, postmodernproph et all bible thumpers to the list of "absolutist" (mindless) fools.

* for believing what they have been lead to read.

.

.

mdr: Do you comprehend the distinction between hermeneutics and scripture?

. ... the absolutist, for real.

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The guy in the video said that the bible is the word of god. So either god doesn't know what he's talking about, or you don't, for posting someone would contradicts you (among other things). Hmmm. Tough decision? Umm... no.

Please try again.

Please, shut up. Your hermeneutics is crap. Your understanding is crap. Your attitude is crap. You don't have any clue about what Lennox or I are talking about. None. Zip. Zilch.

 

[BreezeWood]

The guy in the video said that the bible is the word of god. So either god doesn't know what he's talking about, or you don't, for posting someone would contradicts you (among other things). Hmmm. Tough decision? Umm... no.

Please try again.

Please, shut up. Your hermeneutics is crap. Your understanding is crap. Your attitude is crap. You don't have any clue about what Lennox or I are talking about. None. Zip. Zilch.

mdr: You don't have any clue about what Lennox or I are talking about. None. Zip. Zilch.

.
oh, do give us a clue ....

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Natural selection is neither nothing nor random. And you are right, it does require a measure of intelligence. For instance, an animal likes to eat ants. Ants realize this and dig deeper. In response, some of the animals have a longer tongue. Those with the longer tongue survive because they can reach the ants. The ants dig deeper still so as not to be eaten. And the animals grow longer tongues. And so on and so on in an arms race that has been going on since life first evolved on this planet. Each lifeform depends on other life forms and visa versa. And so what one does affects the others, and their offspring, and their offspring.

Nonsense. There are two aspects of natural selection according to evolutionary theory: the compound, reciprocal aspect of (1) adaptation and selection pressure which are nonrandom and (2) genetic mutation or drift which is random relative to selection pressure.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The guy in the video said that the bible is the word of god. So either god doesn't know what he's talking about, or you don't, for posting someone would contradicts you (among other things). Hmmm. Tough decision? Umm... no.

Please try again.

Please, shut up. Your hermeneutics is crap. Your understanding is crap. Your attitude is crap. You don't have any clue about what Lennox or I are talking about. None. Zip. Zilch.

mdr: You don't have any clue about what Lennox or I are talking about. None. Zip. Zilch.

.
oh, do give us a clue ....

.

Hush, Metamorphosis = Evolution Dimwit.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Do you believe in a worldwide flood? No? Then you don't believe the bible.

do you believe this statement to be true?.....if so, then you are irrational......

I was actually hoping to discuss the matter with someone who believes in the bible, not you.

but you see.....it is not necessary to believe in what you claim about the Bible to believe in the Bible......the Bible is not inaccurate, I am not disbelieving, it is merely that you are an idiot.........

You don't believe in noah and the flood, as told in the bible. Probably a shipload of other stories as well. You might be a bible aficionado, but you're no true follower of Jesus and the bible. Get over it.

so because some fucking idiot decides I have to believe HIS interpretation of the Bible I no longer follow Jesus?.......especially interesting since the peckerhead involved doesn't even believe in God.......face it Tazzy, isn't it MORE likely I'm a follower of Jesus if I DON'T agree with you?.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

not at all, the fact you believe them to be untrue is irrelevant......

The fact that bible stories are untrue actually is relevant.

the fact you are an ignorant fool is self evident......

At Bible U, did they teach you to call people names when you don't have an argument?

no they taught us to recognize foolishness and make it evident to people.....if you don't wish to be identified as foolish, I recommend you stop acting foolish.....

You mean like believing that the stories in the bible aren't true?

no, like claiming I don't believe the Bible is true simply because I don't believe what a dimwitted atheist says about it......again, its not the Bible I'm rejecting......I am rejecting you........

 

[BreezeWood]

The guy in the video said that the bible is the word of god. So either god doesn't know what he's talking about, or you don't, for posting someone would contradicts you (among other things). Hmmm. Tough decision? Umm... no.

Please try again.

Please, shut up. Your hermeneutics is crap. Your understanding is crap. Your attitude is crap. You don't have any clue about what Lennox or I are talking about. None. Zip. Zilch.

mdr: You don't have any clue about what Lennox or I are talking about. None. Zip. Zilch.

.
oh, do give us a clue ....

.

Hush, Metamorphosis = Evolution Dimwit.

.

Hush, Metamorphosis = Evolution Dimwit.

.
the change Dimwhits consider incomprehensible ... from one to another, as the same or not.

.

 

[Taz]

Do you believe in a worldwide flood? No? Then you don't believe the bible.

do you believe this statement to be true?.....if so, then you are irrational......

I was actually hoping to discuss the matter with someone who believes in the bible, not you.

but you see.....it is not necessary to believe in what you claim about the Bible to believe in the Bible......the Bible is not inaccurate, I am not disbelieving, it is merely that you are an idiot.........

You don't believe in noah and the flood, as told in the bible. Probably a shipload of other stories as well. You might be a bible aficionado, but you're no true follower of Jesus and the bible. Get over it.

so because some fucking idiot decides I have to believe HIS interpretation of the Bible I no longer follow Jesus?.......especially interesting since the peckerhead involved doesn't even believe in God.......face it Tazzy, isn't it MORE likely I'm a follower of Jesus if I DON'T agree with you?.....

You're a Jesus aficionado. Nothing more. You cherry pick what you'll follow and the rest, well, it's nonsense but who cares, right?

 

[Taz]

The guy in the video said that the bible is the word of god. So either god doesn't know what he's talking about, or you don't, for posting someone would contradicts you (among other things). Hmmm. Tough decision? Umm... no.

Please try again.

Please, shut up. Your hermeneutics is crap. Your understanding is crap. Your attitude is crap. You don't have any clue about what Lennox or I are talking about. None. Zip. Zilch.

Fat dude says that the bible is the word of god, then goes on to say that, well, even though the earth isn't at the center of the universe, that doesn't matter, it's still the word of god, even though He was wrong on that. Comical.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The guy in the video said that the bible is the word of god. So either god doesn't know what he's talking about, or you don't, for posting someone would contradicts you (among other things). Hmmm. Tough decision? Umm... no.

Please try again.

Please, shut up. Your hermeneutics is crap. Your understanding is crap. Your attitude is crap. You don't have any clue about what Lennox or I are talking about. None. Zip. Zilch.

Fat dude says that the bible is the word of god, then goes on to say that, well, even though the earth isn't at the center of the universe, that doesn't matter, it's still the word of god, even though He was wrong on that. Comical.

The Bible doesn't hold that the Earth is the center of the universe, dummy. The prescientific ancients of all cultures believed that, dummy. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Hollie]

The guy in the video said that the bible is the word of god. So either god doesn't know what he's talking about, or you don't, for posting someone would contradicts you (among other things). Hmmm. Tough decision? Umm... no.

Please try again.

Please, shut up. Your hermeneutics is crap. Your understanding is crap. Your attitude is crap. You don't have any clue about what Lennox or I are talking about. None. Zip. Zilch.

Fat dude says that the bible is the word of god, then goes on to say that, well, even though the earth isn't at the center of the universe, that doesn't matter, it's still the word of god, even though He was wrong on that. Comical.

The Bible doesn't hold that the Earth is the center of the universe, dummy. The ancients of all cultures believed that, dummy. You don't know what you're talking about.

Of course not, dear. The science texts that are the bibles hold that serpents talk, men live to be 600 years old, the earth is flat and merely 6,000 old.

Perhaps if you knew what you're writing, you wouldn't be such a laughable joke.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The guy in the video said that the bible is the word of god. So either god doesn't know what he's talking about, or you don't, for posting someone would contradicts you (among other things). Hmmm. Tough decision? Umm... no.

Please try again.

Please, shut up. Your hermeneutics is crap. Your understanding is crap. Your attitude is crap. You don't have any clue about what Lennox or I are talking about. None. Zip. Zilch.

Fat dude says that the bible is the word of god, then goes on to say that, well, even though the earth isn't at the center of the universe, that doesn't matter, it's still the word of god, even though He was wrong on that. Comical.

The Bible doesn't hold that the Earth is the center of the universe, dummy. The ancients of all cultures believed that, dummy. You don't know what you're talking about.

Of course not, dear. The science texts that are the bibles hold that serpents talk, men live to be 600 years old, the earth is flat and merely 6,000 old.

Perhaps if you knew what you're writing, you wouldn't be such a laughable joke.

More idiocy from know-nothings. Ussher's genealogical calculation has been falsified for decades. According the Bible, Adamic man is at least 40,000 to 50,000 years old.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know...................if you believers are firmly entrenched in your belief that evolution is a myth, then consider one animal.....................

The humble dog.

ALL dog breeds, from the tiny Chihuahua to the Great Dane, and all dogs in between are ALL descendants from one common ancestor.

The wolf.

All dog breeds can be traced back to them. It was because of selection and breeding by mankind that caused all of the different breeds to happen (and in only about 3,000 years).

It says in the Bible that man was created in the image of God, which means in some small way, we are supposed to be able to be like Him.

If mankind can breed dogs into a whole bunch of different breeds, who's to say that God hasn't done that same thing with just about every other thing on Earth?

 

[Hollie]

The guy in the video said that the bible is the word of god. So either god doesn't know what he's talking about, or you don't, for posting someone would contradicts you (among other things). Hmmm. Tough decision? Umm... no.

Please try again.

Please, shut up. Your hermeneutics is crap. Your understanding is crap. Your attitude is crap. You don't have any clue about what Lennox or I are talking about. None. Zip. Zilch.

Fat dude says that the bible is the word of god, then goes on to say that, well, even though the earth isn't at the center of the universe, that doesn't matter, it's still the word of god, even though He was wrong on that. Comical.

The Bible doesn't hold that the Earth is the center of the universe, dummy. The ancients of all cultures believed that, dummy. You don't know what you're talking about.

Of course not, dear. The science texts that are the bibles hold that serpents talk, men live to be 600 years old, the earth is flat and merely 6,000 old.

Perhaps if you knew what you're writing, you wouldn't be such a laughable joke.

More idiocy from know-nothings. Ussher's genealogical calculation has been falsified for decades. According the Bible, Adamic man is at least 40,000 to 50,000 years old.

Of course, dear. Like most thumpers, just make up the stuff as you go along.