Arkansas inflicts child abuse on its school children

[ElishaElijah]

If a person chooses a poor source and is too lazy to even quote from it that tends to show that the person is actually embarrassed by that source and merely pointing out how it is a poor source refutes the argument.


For example the claims of "evidence" by the ICR article. I could not even find any evidence in it. It was not my article so if I quoted something that you did not think was evidence either you could have claimed that I was making a strawman argument. And you might have had a point. That is why I demanded that you quote your own article. That is your job. It is not the job of others.

You asked for something and I gave it to you, sorry you don’t like it.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Sweden’s Karolinska Ends All Use of Puberty Blockers and Cross-Sex Hormones for Minors Outside of Clinical Studies
At least someone is using some common sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The simple answer is you’re assuming you have wisdom and understanding of the Scriptures and God. You don’t and that’s why you misinterpret and put your own meaning on them. This is your error.

The simple answer is you’re assuming you have wisdom and understanding of the Scriptures and God. You don’t and that’s why you misinterpret and put your own meaning on them. This is your error

Hey! I like that argument. It works just as well for me as it does for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You asked for something and I gave it to you, sorry you don’t like it.

I asked for evidence. You did not provide any.

Once again here is the definition of scientific evidence:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.

What is the "hypothesis of creationism"? What test based upon its own merits could possibly refute it?

If you cannot answer those questions then it is all but guaranteed that what you posted was not evidence.

 

[ElishaElijah]

The simple answer is you’re assuming you have wisdom and understanding of the Scriptures and God. You don’t and that’s why you misinterpret and put your own meaning on them. This is your error

Hey! I like that argument. It works just as well for me as it does for you.

Not really, just makes you sound like a parrot.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I asked for evidence. You did not provide any.

Once again here is the definition of scientific evidence:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.

What is the "hypothesis of creationism"? What test based upon its own merits could possibly refute it?

If you cannot answer those questions then it is all but guaranteed that what you posted was not evidence.

I don’t have to answer those questions and I don’t know the name of logical fallacy but sure you made one on that

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not really, just makes you sound like a parrot.

No, it is just as valid when I use it as when you do. In fact probably it is probably more valid when I use that argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t have to answer those questions and I don’t know the name of logical fallacy but sure you made one on that

I made no logical fallacy. You simply made a claim that you were not able to support. I demonstrated that you did not do so and the reason is that you probably cannot support your claim.

You made the error of referring to a known lying source. That greatly harms your credibility. It does not "prove you wrong" but it does support the argument that you are wrong. You did not post any evidence. A link to a poor source is never "evidence" and you were too afraid to quote it since you probably could not find any evidence either.

 

[ElishaElijah]

No, it is just as valid when I use it as when you do. In fact probably it is probably more valid when I use that argument.

Of course it is because you don’t believe the Bible is God’s Word, You don’t know Him. What He says about you is that you’re blind to the truth of the Bible that a veil is over your eyes because you reject the Gospel, that the natural man doesn’t receive the things of the Spirit of God neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned. Keep on truckin

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course it is because you don’t believe the Bible is God’s Word, You don’t know Him. What He says about you is that you’re blind to the truth of the Bible that a veil is over your eyes because you reject the Gospel, that the natural man doesn’t receive the things of the Spirit of God neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned. Keep on truckin

Clearly you do not know him either. You only have your own version of God. You really do not want to know what "God says about you". You would not be happy.

The reason that my interpretation is better is because I understand the limitations and errors of the Bible. You do not. I do not have to make my interpretations based upon fear.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Clearly you do not know him either. You only have your own version of God. You really do not want to know what "God says about you". You would not be happy.

The reason that my interpretation is better is because I understand the limitations and errors of the Bible. You do not. I do not have to make my interpretations based upon fear.

Good for you

 

[ElishaElijah]

I made no logical fallacy. You simply made a claim that you were not able to support. I demonstrated that you did not do so and the reason is that you probably cannot support your claim.

You made the error of referring to a known lying source. That greatly harms your credibility. It does not "prove you wrong" but it does support the argument that you are wrong. You did not post any evidence. A link to a poor source is never "evidence" and you were too afraid to quote it since you probably could not find any evidence either.

Not worried about it

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not worried about it

Then quit making false claims about presenting evidence. You didn't. You provided a link to a poor source. No quotes. No claims.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Then quit making false claims about presenting evidence. You didn't. You provided a link to a poor source. No quotes. No claims.

Provide the false claims

 

[Subduction Zone]

Provide the false claims

When you claimed to have provided evidence. Those were all false claims.

 

[ElishaElijah]

When you claimed to have provided evidence. Those were all false claims.

So you don’t have any right now

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you don’t have any right now

I do. They are in this thread. Read it. You claimed to provide evidence for creation. You did not. That was a false claim. You know that you made that claim. I know that you made that claim. If I found your post where you linked an ICR article would you admit that you lied? If you say that you will not cavil, not make excuses, if you say that you will admit that you lied then I will find, link, and quote that post. If you will not do so there is no point in me doing that work.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Then quit making false claims about presenting evidence. You didn't. You provided a link to a poor source. No quotes. No claims.

Here is another article so feel free to comment on what is presented.
Evidence for the Resurrection

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is another article so feel free to comment on what is presented.
Evidence for the Resurrection

I am not even going to bother on clicking on it. You need to quote what you think is evidence. I am not doing your homework for you.

By the way, that is about supposed evidence for the resurrection. That has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I do. They are in this thread. Read it. You claimed to provide evidence for creation. You did not. That was a false claim. You know that you made that claim. I know that you made that claim. If I found your post where you linked an ICR article would you admit that you lied? If you say that you will not cavil, not make excuses, if you say that you will admit that you lied then I will find, link, and quote that post. If you will not do so there is no point in me doing that work.

Don’t care what you do or don’t do