• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
No, eggs existed hundreds of millions of years before chickens. And remember, you refuse to learn the basics of science. That means that you are unable to debate against that point. At least you cannot do so without looking foolish.
Click to expand...
You are using the same bad assumption again. The No God assumption.

The chicken came first because God cerated the chicken first.

The evolutionist is so deceived that neither could come first.
The chicken could nit come first because the chicken could nit use the egg to have offspring as they would all die without a fully functional egg. And the egg could not come first because that would be a giant leap to make a egg where none was before and to switch to that when it was must have been happening before some other way.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord said:
You are using the same bad assumption again. The No God assumption.
Click to expand...

No, I am using science. It does not have a "No God" assumption. It only looks at the evidence. Science is neutral when it comes to the existence of a God.
SavedByTheLord said:
The chicken came first because God cerated the chicken first.
Click to expand...

Too bad that you do not have any reliable evidence for this claim. Guess what I have for my claims? Let me tell you: Endless scientific evidence. The most well respected evidence in the world.
SavedByTheLord said:
The evolutionist is so deceived that neither could come first.
The chicken could nit come first because the chicken could nit use the egg to have offspring as they would all die without a fully functional egg. And the egg could not come first because that would be a giant leap to make a egg where none was before and to switch to that when it was must have been happening before some other way.
Click to expand...
No. we know that the development of the egg, as almost all developments are in evolution, was an emergent process. There was no "first egg". There was no "first man". There was no "first life". At a certain point the earliest of cells would have crossed a man made boundary that most agree is what makes something "alive".
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
No, I am using science. It does not have a "No God" assumption. It only looks at the evidence. Science is neutral when it comes to the existence of a God.


Too bad that you do not have any reliable evidence for this claim. Guess what I have for my claims? Let me tell you: Endless scientific evidence. The most well respected evidence in the world.

No. we know that the development of the egg, as almost all developments are in evolution, was an emergent process. There was no "first egg". There was no "first man". There was no "first life". At a certain point the earliest of cells would have crossed a man made boundary that most agree is what makes something "alive".
Click to expand...
Rubbish and nonsense.
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
F1fan said:
You quoted the Bible. You offered no evidence to refute science. Rational minds understand that science shows its work and value, while Bible quotes require unwarranted assumptions, and lack evidence.

Where is the proof your God exists outside of your imagination?
Click to expand...
I have refuted fake science of course. The Bible warned about in the last days. Yet another proof of the Bible.

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. - 1 Tim 20-21
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord said:
Rubbish and nonsense.
Click to expand...
Nope. It is why you are losing the debate. Every time you run away from learning the basics you are only telling everyone here that you are afraid to learn.

Creationism is for the weak in faith. The strong in faith believe in God no matter how he made the Earth. You have to call your own God a liar which is to say the least rather pathetic. One cannot reason rationally and consistently and be a YEC.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord said:
I have refuted fake science of course. The Bible warned about in the last days. Yet another proof of the Bible.

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. - 1 Tim 20-21
Click to expand...
Now you just used an equivocation fallacy. The definition for "science" used in that verse is different from the definition of "science" of today. That does mean "knowledge" where the definition that we are using is "knowledge acquired by using the scientific method". The Bible cannot even deal with that because the scientific method did not come about until around the time of Galileo.

Remember how I told you that if you use the claim "logical fallacy" that you had to be able to explain why the idea was fallacious. That is how you do it.
 
F

F1fan

Veteran Member
Alien826 said:
I have an answer to your last question.

First, there's no doubt that he has no expectation of convincing the likes of you and me that any of his assertions are correct. So why waste his time? I submit that we are not the intended audience. The idea is to chip away at "belief" in science and sway the weak minded to his pov. The motivation? I don't want to speculate, but usually money appears somewhere when you look into such things.

So what is the point in refuting his arguments? Just a waste of time? We'll never convince him of anything? True, but if I can prevent just one undecided person from being convinced, then it is worth it. You are doing a great job with your approach (attacking his "debating" methods rather than the actual substance) btw.

Why I suggested an in depth exploration of just one of his claims was to keep the focus in one place. If we allow him to hop from one subject to another, we will not get to demonstrate the falsity of anything. And if we can clearly show the error of one claim, it may be inferred that the other claims can be refuted as easily. It doesn't matter if he himself is not convinced. He's not the audience.
Click to expand...
I have noticed that some true believers are so intrenched in their absurd beliefs that they use the critiques of educated people as a means to be more snd more defiant against evil. They retreat more and more into their convictions and feel more dedicated to their God and “truth”. I suspect they can’t feel this fervor by interacting with like minded believers so use forums to get this religious fix. Studies reveal how the fervor of religious belief can inject more hormones in the reward center of the brain, and over time this fix can become a sort of Pavlovian response. This all bypasses the frontal lobes and processes in the limbic system, the most primitive part of the human brain.
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
F1fan said:
I have noticed that some true believers are so intrenched in their absurd beliefs that they use the critiques of educated people as a means to be more snd more defiant against evil. They retreat more and more into their convictions and feel more dedicated to their God and “truth”. I suspect they can’t feel this fervor by interacting with like minded believers so use forums to get this religious fix. Studies reveal how the fervor of religious belief can inject more hormones in the reward center of the brain, and over time this fix can become a sort of Pavlovian response. This all bypasses the frontal lobes and processes in the limbic system, the most primitive part of the human brain.
Click to expand...
You need help then.
 
F

F1fan

Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord said:
You need help then.
Click to expand...
I gets lots of help from my fellow well educated forum members, but you reject science from them too.

You never explained why you assume your religious beliefs are true. You admit you aren’t a God, so as a fallible human you should realize that truth relies on facts and reasoned arguments. But you don’t. You avoid the humility and accountability that skilled thinkers value.
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
F1fan said:
I gets lots of help from my fellow well educated forum members, but you reject science from them too.

You never explained why you assume your religious beliefs are true. You admit you aren’t a God, so as a fallible human you should realize that truth relies on facts and reasoned arguments. But you don’t. You avoid the humility and accountability that skilled thinkers value.
Click to expand...
I already have proved the Bible is true. And I have more .
 
Sgt. Pepper

Sgt. Pepper

All you need is love.
Subduction Zone said:
No,you haven't. You have only proved that logic is beyond your abilities.
Click to expand...

This individual has stated explicitly to me that he believes evolution is false and can't be defended, yet he continues to ask questions about it. He is also ignoring my questions to remind him of that. I think that it has become quite clear that he has no intention of engaging in an honest debate but rather is here to troll those who reject creationism. He reminds me of the other creationists I've seen on this forum who use the forum to preach and proselytize.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top