Brilliant post! Notice how quiet JCanon has gotten...hehe...trounced!
For JCanon: Is the Global Flood Feasible (Nice Thread From Another Site)
by SYN 26 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
hooberus
If I sound dismissive hooberus, it's becaue I am. Any ONE of the above is usually enough to show that the Biblical Flood did not happen as it is literally described.
several of these items are specifically dealt with here:
-
Abaddon
hooberus;
Don't you think its pathetic that the site you give in an attempt to refute the mass of evidence (and lack of evidence) that indicates there was never a Global Flood as described in Genesis and as believed in lieterally by some Christians starts with an ad hom attack?
The red highlights are mine...
http://www.trueorigins.org/arkdefen.asp
any are familiar with Talk.Origins, counted among the top pro-evolution sites on the Internet. Most of the people running it are ostensibly atheistic. Many had a Christian upbringing and are using evolution as a pseudo-intellectual justification for their apostasy. But they realise that rank atheism is repugnant to many, so they publish articles claiming that you can believe in God and evolution. It?s quite a sight to see people, known personally to us as rabidly hostile to Christianity, yet who are eager to assure inquirers that many Christians accept evolution. It reminds me of Lenin?s strategy of cultivating useful idiots in the West, who were too gullible to realise that they were undermining their own foundations. See also The Skeptics and their Churchian AlliesNice to see such high ethical behaviour on a supposedly Christian site... oh yeah, you gonna respond, ever, to the multiple instances where I have demonstrated that Creationist sites regulary use distortions, misrepresentations or scientific ignorance to support their claims to the Creation and the Flood as literal events? I can go back and count them; there are lots.
Quite frankly, I think it's clear who is basically sticking to a teleological faith-based paradigm, and whose paradigm is the one one uses to cross a road, design a machine, or make financial decisons.
If you based your financial investments on the same level of verifiability and repeatability that you exercise in basing your beliefs, you would be penniless, either through decisons based on bad evidence you thought was good, or because you'd been conned by someone who wanted you to believe in something.
You are still trying to prove something that is impossible according to dating methods you have been unable to refute; you either have to
- accept that you're belief in a Global Flood is based on faith and that you don't need evidence to support that faith, or
- admit the Biblical Flood account is not literal, or
- prove that the dating of arcaeological sites such as the Great Pyramid at Cheops are all in error, or
- prove that dendrochronology and dating via ice-cores are unreliable
... otherwise you are like someone arguing about whether Godzilla could be beaten by Superman; building hypothetical situations based upon a fiction.
-
hooberus
Abaddon if you desire full blown lengthy creation/evolution flood/no flood debates/discusions then why don't you post your complaints/comments on a discussion board which specifically discusses these subjects. Then someone who wishes to spend hours upon hours with you on these things can assist you.
-
Abaddon
Well hooberus, I'm afraid you're being just a tinsy-little bit hypocritical here.
You have started two threads about evolution-creation/flood topics.
So have I. Two. Same as you.
I have joined in discussions taking place, as it's very often neccesary to correct the bad science used to justify creationist or floodist beliefs, point out the quotations taken out of context by creationists or floodists, etc.
If you are trying to restrict my responses to other posts then you seem to need the phrase 'discussion board' explained to you.
You seem to set no such restrictions on yourself, so the word 'hypocritical' seems to also need clarification.
Likewise, as you are (having failed to defend your beliefs) now using a red herring (telling me I should post elsewhere) to distract from the fact your religious beliefs are demonstrably as verifiable as those of someone with a bone through their nose (and I probably have more respect for people with bones through their nose as I don't expect them to use deception or bad science to defend their beliefs), I think the term 'intellectual dishonesty' might also need clarification.
These are not insults, but are descriptions of your behaviour. If I am wrong, please demonstrate I am wrong and I will happily apologise.
-
hooberus
Likewise, as you are (having failed to defend your beliefs) now using a red herring (telling me I should post elsewhere) to distract from the fact your religious beliefs are demonstrably as verifiable as those of someone with a bone through their nose (and I probably have more respect for people with bones through their nose as I don't expect them to use deception or bad science to defend their beliefs), I think the term 'intellectual dishonesty' might also need clarification.
No matter whay I say or reasons I give you generate some sort of accusation (see above for example). Therefore I do not plan on any sort of lengtly dialogue with you.
-
Abaddon
I describe your actions hooberus; if you were able to show I was making up false accusations about you I'm sure you would take great pleasure in showing this.
You haven't even responded to me pointing out you misapplied a Pslam to the Flood when it is obviously about creation, or that you're asking me to restrict my posts in a way you don't restrict yourself.
- Admitting you made a mistake about that Pslam would give you credibility.
- Admitting your creation and flood beliefs are faiths that you do not require to be backed up by facts would give you credibiltiy.
- Admitting that there is no evidence supporting the literal nature of the Biblical creation or flood accounts would give you credibility
- Admitting that Creationists are sometime guilty of scientific ignorance or the deceptive/selective use of facts and quotations would give you credibility
MY ACTIONS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR LEVEL OF CREDIBILITY OR LACK OF IT.
Making out otherwise is intellectual dishonesty - I don't believe you're stupid, and that's the only alternate explanation.
If you want to be credible, choose something from the above list; it's up to you, don't play the victim.
any are familiar with Talk.Origins, counted among the top pro-evolution sites on the Internet. Most of the people running it are ostensibly atheistic.