Debating scriptures with non-believers

Many Christians do not believe that Scripture supports the Young Earth Creationist position. This moderated forum is for good natured scholarly debate.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:09 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
MrDunday wrote:
natman wrote:
Oh dear. I perhaps credited you with more sense than I should of. Perhaps you can tell me why an omnipotent God, capable of creating an entire universe in just 6 days, needed 40 days and night of rain and 6 months of flood just to rid the Earth of all living creatures, including totally innocent animals and babies. What's wrong with waving a hand and just making all the evil vanish? Could it be that the author read the almost identical 'Epic of Gilgamesh' and thought he'd make his own version?


Maybe without realizing it you answered your own question. It does not make sense that God created the universe in 6 days and the flood took longer. The answer is, there is no time limit on the creative days.


Oh, I see. This is a "fact" that all Christians believe because the Bible can't be wrong.

Yer, pigs can fly.


The bible does not say pigs can fly. But the scientists say life just pops out of the ground, just like magic.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:09 pm

sorry this was a repeat .
Last edited by MrDunday on Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Dagsannr » Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:32 pm

MrDunday,

I can see we're going to have trouble with this debate if you continually refuse to read the posts other people put forwards and/or choose to ignore the contents of them.

I quite clearly explained by abiogensis and evolution are separate subjects, but you seem to choose to ignore what's written and just assert your previous mantras without supporting them with any other evidence. I made it very clear that abiogenesis happened, you are here, I am here, therefore it happened. You believe a god did it, I believe gods were not involved at all. Abiogenesis is simply a term we use to refer to the fact that once there was no life, now there is.

You chose to ignore my question about why your god flooded the entire Earth to kill evil people and instead rambled on about days in the bible perhaps meaning something else. That's all very well and good, but had nothing to do with the subject of the post I put forwards.

You insist that evolution requires a non-supernatural beginning to life; evolution states no such thing. This is an unfounded assertion of your own. Evolution might have been started by a god, unlikely, but still possible. You seem to think that either evolution follows your intelligent design principles or is entirely unguided. Some christians believe that god started the whole thing, but then let biology do what it does best all by itself.

Finally, for this section, you say that "scientists say life just pops out of the ground, just like magic". Not only is this grossly inaccurate, but highly misleading. It's also horrendously hypocritical, since your bible claims that god made the first man from dust off the ground! Before making stupid statements like this, you needs to clarify what you mean by life. Given science itself cannot define life exactly yet, it's a bit of a challenge.

I'm sure you'll glance over this post, pick out the words you don't like and totally miss the point, but hey. That's part of the fun debating with creationists!
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:40 pm

cathy wrote:
You said 'abiogenesis happened. That is not scientific! What is your proof or evidence?
Why do you say it happened?

Er cos life is here. You are the evidence and so am I. From the tiniest virus to elephants life exists therefore it must have originated somewhere. Why do you say abiogenesis didn't happen when you are surrounded by living things? That is just silly.

Whether it be by God waving a magic wand or chemistry either abiogenesis happened or we do not exist.

You also say 'evolution' and 'abiogenesis' are different things why?

Because they are. Evolution is the theory of how things diversify from common ancestors via mutations, natural selection and so on. Abiogenesis is the process of getting from raw chemistry to living things. Whether by waving a magic wand or by a slow cumulative process of chemical progress here or elsewhere. You have yet to define what you mean by life? Scientists study the features and try to understand which features came first as nobody things they all appeared at once.

Why do you keep saying saying they are the same? The evidence is that the earliest life that we know of is simple photosynthesising bacteria. The very most you can say is your god waved his magic wand to magic those into existence. Unlikely, but the best you can claim with the scientific evidence we have.


When God is the cause of life it is called creation. If it just happened on its own it is called magic.
The reason creation and science are the same because creation was done using science.
my 3 facts tell you that.
From the actual evidence, not from interpretations, but just the science, is that 1-life comes from life. 2-a human comes from humans. 3- there is design in life.
The scientists have no other evidence than that.
Life:
1.the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
2.the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.


I asked why the scientists have 2 hypotheses. You answered because there are. But that is based on the interpretations of the scientists. Their hypothesis of 'evolution' does not cover the origins of life. Because of that failure they have to have another hypothesis, that covers the origins. This also means that for 'evolution' to be correct 'abiogenesis', has to support it. And that means it has to be from non creation. That is circular thinking, and not scientific.
On top of that they can not prove 'abiogenesis or really have any idea how it could happen, naturally. This is because in part they say 'evolution' is not part of the origins of life. So life to them had to just pop out of the ground. That is magic.
The evidence says there is only 1 cause, that is creation. The scientists do not even look or can they detect ID, so the result is they have no choice but to say no creation. That means their hypothesis is more important than the science.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Michael » Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:52 pm

MrDunday wrote:
cathy wrote:
You said 'abiogenesis happened. That is not scientific! What is your proof or evidence?
Why do you say it happened?

Er cos life is here. You are the evidence and so am I. From the tiniest virus to elephants life exists therefore it must have originated somewhere. Why do you say abiogenesis didn't happen when you are surrounded by living things? That is just silly.

Whether it be by God waving a magic wand or chemistry either abiogenesis happened or we do not exist.

You also say 'evolution' and 'abiogenesis' are different things why?

Because they are. Evolution is the theory of how things diversify from common ancestors via mutations, natural selection and so on. Abiogenesis is the process of getting from raw chemistry to living things. Whether by waving a magic wand or by a slow cumulative process of chemical progress here or elsewhere. You have yet to define what you mean by life? Scientists study the features and try to understand which features came first as nobody things they all appeared at once.

Why do you keep saying saying they are the same? The evidence is that the earliest life that we know of is simple photosynthesising bacteria. The very most you can say is your god waved his magic wand to magic those into existence. Unlikely, but the best you can claim with the scientific evidence we have.


When God is the cause of life it is called creation. If it just happened on its own it is called magic.
The reason creation and science are the same because creation was done using science.
my 3 facts tell you that.
From the actual evidence, not from interpretations, but just the science, is that 1-life comes from life. 2-a human comes from humans. 3- there is design in life.
The scientists have no other evidence than that.
Life:
1.the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
2.the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.


I asked why the scientists have 2 hypotheses. You answered because there are. But that is based on the interpretations of the scientists. Their hypothesis of 'evolution' does not cover the origins of life. Because of that failure they have to have another hypothesis, that covers the origins. This also means that for 'evolution' to be correct 'abiogenesis', has to support it. And that means it has to be from non creation. That is circular thinking, and not scientific.
On top of that they can not prove 'abiogenesis or really have any idea how it could happen, naturally. This is because in part they say 'evolution' is not part of the origins of life. So life to them had to just pop out of the ground. That is magic.
The evidence says there is only 1 cause, that is creation. The scientists do not even look or can they detect ID, so the result is they have no choice but to say no creation. That means their hypothesis is more important than the science.



MrDunday

You give some excellent arguments for atheism in all your folly. If you hold what a Christian should beleive then Christianity is utter nonsense
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:14 pm

"Natman"MrDunday,

I can see we're going to have trouble with this debate if you continually refuse to read the posts other people put forwards and/or choose to ignore the contents of them.

I quite clearly explained by abiogensis and evolution are separate subjects, but you seem to choose to ignore what's written and just assert your previous mantras without supporting them with any other evidence. I made it very clear that abiogenesis happened, you are here, I am here, therefore it happened. You believe a god did it, I believe gods were not involved at all. Abiogenesis is simply a term we use to refer to the fact that once there was no life, now there is.

You chose to ignore my question about why your god flooded the entire Earth to kill evil people and instead rambled on about days in the bible perhaps meaning something else. That's all very well and good, but had nothing to do with the subject of the post I put forwards.

You insist that evolution requires a non-supernatural beginning to life; evolution states no such thing. This is an unfounded assertion of your own. Evolution might have been started by a god, unlikely, but still possible. You seem to think that either evolution follows your intelligent design principles or is entirely unguided. Some christians believe that started the whole thing, but then let biology do what it does best all by itself.

Finally, for this section, you say that "scientists say life just pops out of the ground, just like magic". Not only is this grossly inaccurate, but highly misleading. It's also horrendously hypocritical, since your bible claims that god made the first man from dust off the ground! Before making stupid statements like this, you needs to clarify what you mean by life. Given science itself cannot define life exactly yet, it's a bit of a challenge.

I'm sure you'll glance over this post, pick out the words you don't like and totally miss the point, but hey. That's part of the fun debating with creationists!




Yes I did read what you said , about the hypothesis of the science as 2 different causes. I know they say that.
It is just that that is incorrect. It is the failure of the hypothesis of the scientists to explain life and the variety. Because 'evolution' does not explain the origins of life, they need another hypothesis to try to explain that.
Creation is not an assertion.
Creation is supported by my 3 facts.
1 life comes from life. The scientist have no evidence of anything other than that. They have no example of life on the earth , that just happened. All they can say is "it must have happened". But that is not scientific. They also have no example or any idea how life could just happen. So they can only assume life just happened. But that is not scientific.

The bible says the people at the time of the flood, were full of violence. All they wanted to do was bad.

In one my last posts I put the definition about what life was.
I did not assert the 'evolution' needs a creation to start. The scientists assert that. 'Evolution' needs the exact opposite. If creation was any part of the life here on earth, 'evolution' would be a myth.
But the other interesting thing about this is the scientists start with a life that is already working with it's many parts. So in effect they by pass the origins and continue on as though 'abiogenesis' was already proved and supports the side of non creation. So they have built a house with no foundation. Hoping that in the future they will be proved correct.

I use the word creation, if the scientists think that is the same as 'abiogenesis' then why not use the word creation? As it has been around for a long time. And it is much clearer in meaning.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby jon_12091 » Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:02 am

MrDunday wrote:I did not assert the 'evolution' needs a creation to start. The scientists assert that. 'Evolution' needs the exact opposite. If creation was any part of the life here on earth, 'evolution'

That sounds awfully like the 'evolution disproves God' argument turned on its head.
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby cathy » Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:35 am

But 'evolution' demands that the start to life be from non creation.

Where does 'evolution' demand that? And what exactly do you mean. Your terms are very imprecise.

It is the failure of the hypothesis of the scientists to explain life and the variety.
Explain how it fails please, again you are just throwing out statements. Nobody can respond without specifics. Evolution explains the variety of life extremely well. It makes predictions about what should be found and those predictions are verified.

Because 'evolution' does not explain the origins of life, they need another hypothesis to try to explain that.
Yes!!! have you not understood the fact that at least four people have been saying exactly that to you for the last two days.

Evolution is not the explanation of the origin of life it is the explanation of the diversity from a common ancestor. The path to that common ancestor will start with raw chemistry and progress slowly developing features of life such as replication till it reaches a point where it can be deemed living. They are different things completely.

You have been asked on several ocassions to define what you mean by life. I'll give you a clue it is usually a list of features such as replication and metabolism. It is impossible to discuss the current hypotheses with you till you state what features you think are necessary for life and why you take the unscientific view that they all have to appear at once rather than gradually.

They have no example of life on the earth , that just happened.
Now I think you really have been reading creationist literature and been conned. That is one of their common lies.

No scientist on the planet studying the origins of life think it just suddenly appeared. No scientist on the planet thinks you can throw some chemicals into a pot and a simple living cell will appear.

Life is characterised by many features. The progress to life is the appearance of those features one by one slowly. And linking those features together.

So they can only assume life just happened. But that is not scientific.
Two points here that have already been raised. See above then go and research outside of the creationist lies and half truths and look at some real science. For each stage of the process to life their are good scientific hypotheses generating interesting results. Second point they are not 'assuming' life happened they are working with the certainty that it did. And you are proof it did.

The bible says the people at the time of the flood, were full of violence. All they wanted to do was bad.

Ok how were the following full of violence and what dastardly deeds did they want to do: babies, toddlers, children, those with learning disabilities? All the animals of the earth that breathe (or whatever the definition was). What was so good about Noah? after all he must have sailed past a fair few of his screaming neighbours and friends or their children yet didn't stop to help a single one. I've asked this question of our other creationist he has yet to give a specific answer maybe you can oblige.

Earlier on you said that people were prepared to die for things they believed in including their faith. Can I point out that they may be prepared to die but aren't prepared to stop talking nonsense and telling lies. Dying bit pointless, telling the truth and talking sense might make some difference.

Now I used to believe in your God. I believed he created the world but also accepted every piece of science - evolution from a common ancestor, chemical evolution from raw chemistry to eventual life. The real science is awe inspiring.

Then I came across people like you and the other biblically literal creationists/IDers. And they proved to me and continue to prove to me beyond all shadow of a doubt that God does NOT exist. Cos if he did he'd have told you and your friends long ago to stop talking nonsense. If he did exist he'd force you to listen to the points being made here and stop listening to creationist lies and half baked ideas. And he tell you to go read some real science books and try to understand the bible as a whole rather than reading it like a simplistic childs book.

And two other points it might be worth your considering. If you go look at the real science and believe your God exists outside of but had some overall responsibility for that (and science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God - tho creationists can disprove it by making it dependent on a fairly literal interpretation of Genesis) than it he is pretty damn clever - thats what made me think he was really worth worshipping when I was a Christian.

If he created as you claim by waving a magic wand than he is definitely inferior in imagination and scope to the average scientist. And way below people like Darwin. The real science is simply so much better - why not celebrate that your God is capable of that rather than the little dull god with a magic wand? So even if you now proved he existed I'd be rather unimpressed with him.

Secondly if he did drown innocent children and animals just cos some people were wicked and considered Noah who saved nobody a righteous man, than he must be a psychopathic bully. Not someone I'd worship.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Dagsannr » Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:36 am

MrDunday wrote:Yes I did read what you said , about the hypothesis of the science as 2 different causes. I know they say that.
It is just that that is incorrect. It is the failure of the hypothesis of the scientists to explain life and the variety. Because 'evolution' does not explain the origins of life, they need another hypothesis to try to explain that.


There's several competing theories as to the ultimate origins of life, all of them supported by good evidence but they're all lacking just a little something to turn them from experimentally derived hypothesis into true theories. And, like I've said many times, evolution does not require a solid theory of abiogenesis to work.

Creation is not an assertion.


That in itself is an assertion

Creation is supported by my 3 facts.
1 life comes from life. The scientist have no evidence of anything other than that. They have no example of life on the earth , that just happened. All they can say is "it must have happened". But that is not scientific. They also have no example or any idea how life could just happen. So they can only assume life just happened. But that is not scientific.


Can you clarify what you mean by life in this context. Is a virus alive? How about prions? How about free DNA strands? How about long chain, self-replicating organic polymers? You insist that 'life must come from life' but don't clarify what you mean by life. We're quite capable of creating self-replicating molecules in the lab from totally lifeless chemicals.

The bible says the people at the time of the flood, were full of violence. All they wanted to do was bad.


Even the babies? What about all the animals? I'm sure an omnipotent god could've just killed all the humans with a wave of his hand. Why go to all the bother of a flood?

In one my last posts I put the definition about what life was.


Evidently not very well as I can't find it.

I did not assert the 'evolution' needs a creation to start. The scientists assert that. 'Evolution' needs the exact opposite. If creation was any part of the life here on earth, 'evolution' would be a myth.
But the other interesting thing about this is the scientists start with a life that is already working with it's many parts. So in effect they by pass the origins and continue on as though 'abiogenesis' was already proved and supports the side of non creation. So they have built a house with no foundation. Hoping that in the future they will be proved correct.


The use of 'scare quotes' is amazing. As is your inability to take in anything that anyone else is saying.

Your religion is built on a house with no foundation too - who created your god? If you answer with "God needs no creation", then I counter with 'Evolution needs no explanation of abiogenesis".

If you can make unfounded general assertations, then so can I.

I use the word creation, if the scientists think that is the same as 'abiogenesis' then why not use the word creation? As it has been around for a long time. And it is much clearer in meaning.


Creation implies a creator, thinking unproven as yet.

I can create things, out of lego and clay. Birds can create nests from sticks and mud.

The term abiogenesis isn't loaded with meaning, stands in direct opposition to the concept of biogensis (life from life), and is a term everyone is happy using as we all know what it means.

Apart from you, it seems.

I'm going to ask that an admin locks this thread as we're no longer talking about the scriptural stuff we started with and this is a topic that's better suited for general discussion. If you want to talk about what the bible actually says about creation and evolution, and not what you think it says, then feel free to start a new thread.
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Michael » Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:42 am

The eleventh commandment is;

Thou shalt not feed trolls
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Roger Stanyard » Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:15 am

MrDunday wrote:



Yes I did read what you said , about the hypothesis of the science as 2 different causes. I know they say that.


No "they" don't. Many of the people in this forum are, unlike you, well qualified scentists and, as far as I am aware, none has ever made such a claim. You're a bloody liar to suggest otherwise.

MrDunday wrote:It is just that that is incorrect. It is the failure of the hypothesis of the scientists to explain life and the variety..


And scientifically illiterate to boot. A hypotheses is not a scientific explanation.. It's dead giveway that you talk out of your backside.

MrDunday wrote:Because 'evolution' does not explain the origins of life, they need another hypothesis to try to explain that.


Evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis.
MrDunday wrote:Creation is not an assertion.
Creation is supported by my 3 facts.
1 life comes from life. The scientist have no evidence of anything other than that. They have no example of life on the earth , that just happened. All they can say is "it must have happened". But that is not scientific. They also have no example or any idea how life could just happen. So they can only assume life just happened. But that is not scientific.


The assumption that life originated from non-life is a valid assumption from which to deduce a hypothesis. Moreover the is plenty of evidence to suggest it is at least plausible. Viruses are an example of the borderline between life and complex replicating chemicals.

The bible says the people at the time of the flood, were full of violence. All they wanted to do was bad.[/quote]

Hitler thought all the Jews were evil and had to be killed. Nice to see that you justify killing babies because they are violent. So you prpose to kill all the violent people in this world, babies included.

MrDunday wrote:
In one my last posts I put the definition about what life was.
I did not assert the 'evolution' needs a creation to start. The scientists assert that. 'Evolution' needs the exact opposite. If creation was any part of the life here on earth, 'evolution' would be a myth.


If life were seeded by panspermia then you and mainstream science would have to rethink everything.
MrDunday wrote:But the other interesting thing about this is the scientists start with a life that is already working with it's many parts.


Nope, scientists don't.

MrDunday wrote:o in effect they by pass the origins and continue on as though 'abiogenesis' was already proved and supports the side of non creation.


No scientist ever assumes or claims "proof". Not part of the scientific method. Stick to maths and booze if you want to talk about "proof".

Strange, isn't it that creationists usually accept that evolution occurred. perhaps you should re-read what garbage you've lifted off of cretinist web sites.

MrDunday wrote:So they have built a house with no foundation. Hoping that in the future they will be proved correct.


Science doesn't deal in proofs and no scientist expects to be "proven correct". All science is tentative.

MrDunday wrote:I use the word creation, if the scientists think that is the same as 'abiogenesis' then why not use the word creation? As it has been around for a long time. And it is much clearer in meaning.


Because science does not accept the supernatural as an explanation because it is not falsifiable.

But, wait a minute, why should scientists accept your religious position? Scientists are, like you, me and everyone else, completely free to hold whatever religious they feel comfortable with. They are under no obligation to accept or even recognise Hinduism, Islam, Catholicism, Calvinism, fundamentalism, atheism, agnosticism or any of the millions of different viewpoints on religion.

As for speaking for Christianity, you don't.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Roger Stanyard » Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:17 am

Michael wrote:The eleventh commandment is;

Thou shalt not feed trolls


McDunday is unaware of the ninth commandment Michael.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:53 pm

natman wrote
There's several competing theories as to the ultimate origins of life, all of them supported by good evidence but they're all lacking just a little something to turn them from experimentally derived hypothesis into true theories. And, like I've said many times, evolution does not require a solid theory of abiogenesis to work.

Yes that is the point, If any of those hypotheses was valid they would pick one and go with it.
I used the example of a loaf of bread. There would be many ideas on how that bread happened naturally. There would be competing ideas. But they could never prove it. Now with the increase of knowledge over the last 150 years, and the discovery and understanding of DNA, they are further away than before. Because DNA introduces many more complicated and baffling question it you believe in a non creative start to life, also in 'evolution' because you also have to take into account what the coding does for, the variety of life. For example does it allow animals to go further than their 'kind'? Also what does it have to say in adaption, natural selection, breeding and mutations? All of these has to be controlled some how, to maintain a health and stable 'species' . If any of these 4 causes for variety were out of control , who knows what kind of life there would be. These things are in balance, and if man interfere which has happened, the results are unexpected by the scientists, or they would not have done it, in the first place.

So the scientists have nothing to say about any of this because the don't even look for ID. So what happens is that , what ever happens it is because of 'evolution' , so here again 'evolution' is the evidence. But that is not scientific.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Roger Stanyard » Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:02 pm

MrDunday wrote:So the scientists have nothing to say about any of this because the don't even look for ID. So what happens is that , what ever happens it is because of 'evolution' , so here again 'evolution' is the evidence. But that is not scientific.


Rubbish. The "scientists" who are fellows of the Discovery Institute have been looking at evidence of creationism for years. Their problem is what they have presented simply does not stack up. They can't identify which features show evidence of design and the maths behind their claims doesn't work.

The scientific world and mathematicians have listened to the likes of Dembski and Behe and found them to be seriously unconvincing.

But, then, you don't know anything about science so you can't follow the "debate".
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:02 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
Michael wrote:The eleventh commandment is;

Thou shalt not feed trolls


McDunday is unaware of the ninth commandment Michael.

Roger, why is it with ones that support the scientists, as soon as they are confronted with reason and evidence they want to kill the messenger?
The science is supposed to be the field you are supporting, so why not use the science , if you think I am wrong?
All I am doing is showing you where the scientists interpretation of the science is faulty. You don't have to accept what I say. But you should at least show by evidence where you think I am wrong.
We are passed the name calling stage. I don't do that at all. but I know when I first come, the ones that have nothing to say resort to that. But I also know at first it takes a little time, for them to get their bearings. Then we get into the science. It's time for that.
Do you agree?
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Scripture Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron