Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   It seems the christians here are selling snake oil
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 16 of 29 (29611)
01-19-2003 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by iconoclast2440
01-18-2003 7:43 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-18-2003 7:43 AM iconoclast2440 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-20-2003 1:09 AM peter borger has replied

  
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 29 (29619)
01-20-2003 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by peter borger
01-19-2003 9:20 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by peter borger, posted 01-19-2003 9:20 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by peter borger, posted 01-20-2003 5:19 AM iconoclast2440 has not replied

  
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 29 (29620)
01-20-2003 1:17 AM


>--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]

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 19 of 29 (29629)
01-20-2003 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by iconoclast2440
01-20-2003 1:09 AM


Dear Imagebasher,
Ever heard of Buddika? Wanna go his way?
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-20-2003 1:09 AM iconoclast2440 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by TrueCreation, posted 01-20-2003 9:05 PM peter borger has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 29 (29710)
01-20-2003 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by peter borger
01-20-2003 5:19 AM


"Ever heard of Buddika? Wanna go his way?"
--TC lets out a chuckle.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by peter borger, posted 01-20-2003 5:19 AM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-21-2003 11:34 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 29 (29771)
01-21-2003 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by TrueCreation
01-20-2003 9:05 PM


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 Topic
TC 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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by TrueCreation, posted 01-20-2003 9:05 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by TrueCreation, posted 01-22-2003 10:44 PM iconoclast2440 has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 29 (29967)
01-22-2003 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by iconoclast2440
01-21-2003 11:34 AM


"yes i am laughing to as TC admittedly can't answer important questions by geologists in these forums."
--And, your point?
"I am reading about This buddika right now from a Flood thread of yours: http://EvC Forum: Buddika & TrueCreation's Flood Topic -->EvC Forum: Buddika & TrueCreation's Flood Topic
TC 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.
"
--Wow.. i'm blushing, really. Hows about one of those 'examples', eh?
[edit] - Don't accuse me of dodging anything if you cant support that statement.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-22-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-21-2003 11:34 AM iconoclast2440 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-23-2003 12:36 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 29 (29974)
01-23-2003 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by TrueCreation
01-22-2003 10:44 PM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by TrueCreation, posted 01-22-2003 10:44 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by TrueCreation, posted 01-23-2003 3:52 PM iconoclast2440 has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 29 (30053)
01-23-2003 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by iconoclast2440
01-23-2003 12:36 AM


"Sure i'd be glad to show you some concerning this topic"
--Such as?
" http://EvC Forum: General Flood Topic -->EvC Forum: General Flood Topic "
--Read post #38, this does not qualify as support for your assertion that I 'dodge' questions.
" http://EvC Forum: Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II -->EvC Forum: Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II "
--I never participated in this thread.
" http://EvC Forum: Paleosols -->EvC Forum: Paleosols "
--Show me where I dodge the question in the Paleosols thread, not here. Also, that thread is very much still on my mind, I am waiting for Yuretich to send me copies of his articles. I also have a copy of his response toward edge's e-mail. Furthermore, I had a very interesting conversation with Yuretich himself via telephone.
--When I get a hold of the papers he is mailing me, the thread will continue. If you want to participate, post in the thread, you are welcome.
" 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 "
--Now I'd really like to see your comments on my responses in this thread which indicate that I 'dodge questions'.
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-23-2003 12:36 AM iconoclast2440 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-24-2003 3:11 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 29 (30089)
01-24-2003 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by TrueCreation
01-23-2003 3:52 PM


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"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by TrueCreation, posted 01-23-2003 3:52 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by TrueCreation, posted 01-24-2003 3:56 PM iconoclast2440 has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 29 (30130)
01-24-2003 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by iconoclast2440
01-24-2003 3:11 AM


"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" "
--And you call that dodging the question? This isn't working, try again. Do you even know what how the argumentum of dodging the question goes?
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-24-2003 3:11 AM iconoclast2440 has not replied

  
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 29 (30132)
01-24-2003 4:07 PM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by TrueCreation, posted 01-25-2003 12:04 PM iconoclast2440 has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 29 (30172)
01-25-2003 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by iconoclast2440
01-24-2003 4:07 PM


"yes i do call that dodging."
--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. You must read very little of the mainstream scientific literature, because if you had, you wouldn't be making this ridiculous invective. There being an unsolved problem does in no shape or form constitute dodging the question. If you wish to maintain this accusation, your throwing the scientific methodology of science itself right out the window.
"You keep on trying to find facts that substantiate your claims while ignoring everything that hurts your argument. "
--I don't consider admittance of there being an unsolved problem dodging the question, 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.
--Please, try again. I would, furthermore, wonder why you would even stop to think that Buddika had anything beneficial to say back in that[corrected] thread. The poor guy didn't even know what he was talking about the majority of the time, or even what he was arguing. He is long gone from this forum and the conclusions are self-evident. I would much rather hold discussions with those characterizing less ignorance and more intelligence here.
--I am still waiting for something of substance from you, maybe you could be more specific in your examples?
[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?
"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."
--So you arent aware of the concept of indirect evidence? You should read up on the cosmogony of interstellar media and see just how theoretical reasoning is supported in that field.
"If the biblical message contradicts itself it isn't true no matter what other part of it may be true."
--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.
"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."
--Sure, in its current state is is not entirely tenable. No problem there. The problem you have is that you believe that since it's current condition is poor that it therefor has no room for improvement. 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.
"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."
--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. 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).
-------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-25-2003]
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-25-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-24-2003 4:07 PM iconoclast2440 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-25-2003 1:09 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 29 (30175)
01-25-2003 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by TrueCreation
01-25-2003 12:04 PM


>--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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by TrueCreation, posted 01-25-2003 12:04 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024