It seems the christians here are selling snake oil

I have noticed that Peter has often asked the admin to close threads he was clearly losing debates inTC and TB constantly dodge difficult questions or admit they don't have answers to them YET proceed to teach their refuted mantra and seek to provide evidence for it regardless of the impossibilities presented to them.Why do christians avoid the threads they have clearly lost in? It is as if they are dodging accepting the consequences of these contradcitions.IE Jesus' genealogy, 120 years of man, How did Judas die etcIf God's word has been refuted why do they continue to believe in it?When are they going to answer these hard questions?Why does Fortenberry keep avoiding responding to me about the impossibilities of Jesus' davidic lineage?Seriously christians why do you even bother when you don't appear to have a leg to stand on?

Peter he has answered everyone of your questions. Have you answered all of his?

what is your point? You never asnwered some of the basic questions presented to you by the peanut gallery: If evolution is ordered by whom is it ordered? God?These are a damn good question. Even if it were order so what? How do you know it wasn't order by the alien frogs from the Quagmar galaxy? What evidence have you for divine intervention from God? Can you address apparent doctrinal and prophet contradictions within the bible that refute its divine guidance?

I need not add anything to those threads. The point was made.

quote:

---

I have started two of the threads you mention. the one on Judas has not been refuted and I have provided a reference from classical writing supporting my claim. I can provide additional evidence, but there seems no point at the moment.

---

actually you didn't. THe bible claims he didn't multiple ways and what you said was this:"I do not believe so. I believe the verse in matthew does not speak of Judas's death but rather that he was "choked with grief". It would be similar to someone today "hanging their head in shame"."Of course this is absolute nonsense judge as it fails to explain the differences in:"Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out"and"So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself."You claim this is not a contradiction?

quote:

---

I have provided a simple solution to the apparent problems of matthews geneology that requires one word to be transalted as father rather than husband.

---

actually that doesn't work out either as a woman can't provide davidic lineage. sorry. This is not a solution in the light of said fact. Therefore they wouldn't have intended you to tranlate that as father. Perhaps you should have read through John's replies more thoroughly.

quote:

---

In every other instsnce (and there are a few) the Aramaic word "gowra" is used throughout matthew it is in the sesne of a father.

---

Again this is a presupposition based on the assumption woman could cary on lineage. This is in fact not so.

quote:

---

yes, there have been some other ideas suggested (all more complicated and less parsimoniuos IMO), but to say that this means my post has been "refuted" draws a long bow...don't you think?

---

No of course it doesn't. The reason why that is so is do to the fact your position isn't biblically founded. It doesn't make a difference how many possibilities you present if they are infact all wrong.Easily.You are opperating on the invalid assumption this one verse says joseph is the father of Mary and the father of Jesus. This is a ridiculous argument of semantics and here is why:1. The bible translators for centuries have translated this Joseph to be the husband of mary assuming that this Joseph was the Joseph mentioned in the stories. Hell why not? As there is no other Joseph mentioned as Mary's father anywhere else in the bible (not even a refernce to a mother for that matter).2. Women can't provide lineage. This is clearly set axiom by the history of the bible and tradition of the jewish people.3. Prophecies where made to david and the jews that a savior would come from the seed of david. Inorder for that to happen a man must contribute the seed.4. Contrary to christian belief (and Matthew's teachings) Micah 5:2 doesn't speak of Jesus being born in Bethlehem!2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans [2] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins [3] are from of old,
from ancient times. [4] "No where does it say land of bethlehem!more later

"I do not believe so. I believe the verse in matthew does not speak of Judas's death but rather that he was "choked with grief". It would be similar to someone today "hanging their head in shame"."The more i read this the more absurd it sounds.You believe this is what it is saying? so really you don't have anything of substance do you? Just a mere suggestion. What evidence do you have for this to substantiate this claim?Hmmm what does the heading of the chapter say in the NIV?Judas Hangs Himselfapparently the writters of the NIV also feel this was Judas' suicide along with the vast majority of christian literature.who witnessed all of this ?
How do you fall headlong so your guts come out?
Judas threw his money down in the temple, what did he buy Potter's field with?"5So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
6The chief priests picked up the coins and said, 'It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.' They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me."interesting...what do Acts say?"18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)"Really? You mean that same money he threw down at the temple that the preists took and used to by the field he hung himself in?[This message has been edited by iconoclast2440, 01-19-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear ion,

​

Ion: These are a damn good question. Even if it were order so what? How do you know it wasn't order by the alien frogs from the Quagmar galaxy?

​

PB: That will be the next lie.

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

the next lie? Can you answer those questions?

>--You say this as if it is a bad thing?<Yes.>How's about you go ask a mainstream scientist in the early 1900's about the driving mechanism for plate tectonics, they will give you no answer.<But not proceed to dodge the question. This isn't about answering the questions based off information that is out there which you don't have. This is about contradictions for which there are no answers.>I as well as TB are not embarrassed to admit that there are many difficulties within our perspective.<and contradictions? Will you address the specific questions please?>I do not dodge questions which I don't have answers to with any pompous attitude.<No you dodge them simply because you don't have an answer YET proceed to further your agenda by trying to support it from another angle. This of course is impossible as all aspects must be true! If the biblical message contradicts itself it isn't true no matter what other part of it may be true.>I also don't itterate refuted mantra..<yes you do. How many times have you persued this flood thing? How many times have your angles been refuted? If any one of your angles have been refuted your entire theory as a whole collapses.>Have I even done any discussions with you yet? Your attack on Christians in general is pretty sophomoric as well..<Oh please you are nothing more than a bunch theists with outdated and refuted doctrines who like drowning men grasp at anything to try and stay afloat. Don't call me sophmoric when you believe in great sky fairy.[This message has been edited by iconoclast2440, 01-20-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Ever heard of Buddika? Wanna go his way?"
--TC lets out a chuckle.

​

---

yes i am laughing to as TC admittedly can't answer important questions by geologists in these forums.I am reading about This buddika right now from a Flood thread of yours: http://EvC Forum: Buddika & TrueCreation's Flood TopicTC i'd have to Edge and buddika did an excellent job at refuting your mythology. Again here is a great example how you dodge importnat questions.[This message has been edited by iconoclast2440, 01-21-2003]

--Wow.. i'm blushing, really. Hows about one of those 'examples', eh?Sure i'd be glad to show you some concerning this topichttp://EvC Forum: General Flood Topic -->EvC Forum: General Flood Topic
http://EvC Forum: Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II -->EvC Forum: Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II
http://EvC Forum: Paleosols -->EvC Forum: Paleosols
http://EvC Forum: Formations really do match detailed lab expts of sorting under rapid currents -->EvC Forum: Formations really do match detailed lab expts of sorting under rapid currents

TC you aren't capable of answering tough questions presented to you in those threads. yes you are dodging them as you have never answered them. You just replied "this is a problem for YECs"

yes i do call that dodging. You keep on trying to find facts that substantiate your claims while ignoring everything that hurts your argument.

>--Then you don't know what dodging the question is. You earlier stated, "yes you are dodging them as you have never answered them." Which implies that since the question was not answered, it therefore, was dodged. Such logic is sophistic and execrable reasoning.<What is sophistic is that you continue reasoning for your belief inlight of information that makes your scenerio impossible.You are indeed dodging these questions! If you can't answer them it doesn't make a difference how much "evidence" you can say supports your theory as it could never be fact unless your position can provide truthful answers.>You must read very little of the mainstream scientific literature, because if you had, you wouldn't be making this ridiculous invective.<I find humor in this tatement coming from you as what you read is geared souly to support your point (as it is evident you haven't even consider contradicting information).>There being an unsolved problem does in no shape or form constitute dodging the question.<In this case it most certainly does.Case in point: Evolutionary theorists have yet to uncover many possible transitional species however they continue exploring other grounds of evolution.In your case you have had evidence presented to you (ie chalk formation) who's existance is impossible within the biblical flood scenerio. Inlight of said impossibility you continue to research for support of a global flood.>If you wish to maintain this accusation, your throwing the scientific methodology of science itself right out the window.<Lol. There is irony in you stating you use scientific method to support your mythos.Scientific method aids in establishing fact. By various tests methods can reveal impossibilities in various scenerios. What happens to a theory if it is found to be impossible? it is either modified or eradicated.>--I don't consider admittance of there being an unsolved problem dodging the question,<lol! You admitted you couldn't answer it and then avoided the subject entirely. You forget you can't answer it because of impossibility NOT because of a lack of information.>let alone ignoring the question. But again, if you want to incessantly sustain either, I don't know why your even in a science based forum with that type of profligatious mind-set.<You have a lot of nerve stating such when you adhere to nonsense and mythos from archaic belief systems.>--Please, try again. I would, furthermore, wonder why you would even stop to think that Buddika had anything beneficial to say back in that thread. The poor guy didn't even know what he was talking about the majority of the time,<But others apparently did. Not to mention they appeared to agree with what he was saying.>I would much rather hold discussions with those characterizing less ignorance and more intelligence here.<and yet you hold to mythos.>--I am still waiting for something of substance from you, maybe you could be more specific in your examples?<I have shown you much of substance but you ignore it. Of course. Much like you still ignore the chalk formation.[Edit] - I just noticed your post #18, you didn't use the reply button when you responded so I hadn't noticed it:"and contradictions? Will you address the specific questions please?"
--Such as?>--I'm not here to argue a game of scriptural semantics with you. Just look at my message index and see how much interest I have in that area, I don't even know why I'm in this thread, but I guess its because I didn't notice that it was in the The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy forum when I started posting.<What you are here to do is further your mythos. You haven't indirect information supporting the biblical flood. You can't answer impossibilities nor can you show that if a flood did occur it wasn't some one elses myth. All you are doing is spining your wheels.>--Sure, in its current state is is not entirely tenable. No problem there.<lol your position is IMPOSSIBLE.>The problem you have is that you believe that since it's current condition is poor that it therefor has no room for improvement.<Lol. The chalk formations just happened by spontaneous deposition and remained unbroken?>When in all reality, there is more possible improvement than you wan't to believe. To me, that makes it just that more exciting to be apart of the research.<Your position is absolute nonsense and you know it. You have had information provided to you that is impossible and can't be answered. You can't establish that ANY information you have supports the biblical flood. How do you know if a flood did occur it wasn't gilgamesh's flood?>--I believe that is called an Argumentum ad Hominem, it also looks like you already have your premise, and you've made a narrow mind an indicative characteristic of yours.<As much of a personal attack as it may it still stands. You persue this nonsense to try and support nonsense you can't even establish is your own myth. Have you even considered the possibility the myth wasn't borrowed from the babylonians? No of course not. You started with the assumption the bible is a work of history and not fiction. This is a logical fallacy.Can you show me any evidence that if a flood occured it wasn't some other myths flood?>When you begin to respect me and my position, I might begin to respect you (I already respect your position when it comes to evolution).<I won't ever be able to respect your position as you deliberately misrepresent data.[This message has been edited by iconoclast2440, 01-25-2003][This message has been edited by iconoclast2440, 01-25-2003][This message has been edited by iconoclast2440, 01-25-2003]